Are you preparing for economic collapse?

nearlynew

Cleaver wrote: »

Rule Number 1 from 'Conspiracy Nut / Tin Foil Hatter's Bible':

"You shall assume that absolutely no one is as well read as you, no one ever questions any source that they read and everyone else believes every single thing they read or see in the media. You are the one that knows the truth and the media / sources / articles you read are vastly superiour and are overflowing with truth compared to the sheeple's. It is your duty to point this out to them at all times, especially in a patronising and condescending way if possible. Internet forums and youtube videos are ideal ways to spread the word. Remember tin foilers: you know the truth and everyone else is stupid!"

Couldn't have put it better myself.

i8change

Originally Posted by nearlynew
Since our whole way of life is based upon continual growth, which in turn is based upon infinite resources, Hammer's prediction above is almost inevitable.

I came across this essay of woe, by accident, and though scary and depressing in parts found it compelling to read.

If I remember correctly it was a warning to Westerners, from an American that had moved to Argentina in better times, that modern civilisations can fail with drastic consequences.

"Crime and Insecurity" in Part Two was particularly disturbing and reminded me of a documentary I saw, filmed in South Africa. The policeman who investigated the murders there said the same thing, that once they have got people helpless inside their homes, the torture and suffering inflicted upon their victims is pure evil.

You never can tell how accurate things posted on the internet are but it looks fairly genuine to me, it certainly got my attention. There's a bit of work gone into it.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.08/tshtf1.html

HammerSmashedFace

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean nutter blogs and Youtube

You're an intelligent bloke Steve, I don't understand why you can't see the end game in all of this. Many people believe the philosophy that technology will save us, in part and for a smaller global population that suggestion does have some legs.

However what technology has failed to give us since the 1850's is a replacement for oil, it's ease of transport, its EROEI value, the value of it's particulates in everything from baby nappies to fertilizer. The simple facts are there isn't even anything remotely on the horizon that will allow planes to fly, lorrys to roll, cars to transport people in the way that we see today and on the scale we see today, there is nothing. Only the faint hope that fusion may hold the key, that though is by no means a certainty.

With us now hitting peak oil we needed something in development now, not when we hit $200 a barrel and everyone is screaming. If it's not in development now, it simply does not exist, as we are too close now to economic collapse, which I believe will start to show within a decade, if you don't count 2008 as the start.

Harry_Powell

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

You're an intelligent bloke Steve, I don't understand why you can't see the end game in all of this. Many people believe the philosophy that technology will save us, in part and for a smaller global population that suggestion does have some legs.

However what technology has failed to give us since the 1850's is a replacement for oil, it's ease of transport, its EROEI value, the value of it's particulates in everything from baby nappies to fertilizer. The simple facts are there isn't even anything remotely on the horizon that will allow planes to fly, lorrys to roll, cars to transport people in the way that we see today and on the scale we see today, there is nothing. Only the faint hope that fusion may hold the key, that though is by no means a certainty.

With us now hitting peak oil we needed something in development now, not when we hit $200 a barrel and everyone is screaming. If it's not in development now, it simply does not exist, as we are too close now to economic collapse, which I believe will start to show within a decade, if you don't count 2008 as the start.

Hydrogen?

The most abundant element in the universe, zero emissions (well, ok, water).

Really2

The technology debate does hold water because it is chemically possible in theory to get power from lots of resources.

It is just making them economically viable, oil does not have to be the be all and end all.

Cars can run on hydrogen, electric etc.

But there is oil from alge being developed.
http://www.oilgae.com/

But in reality we have not been looking to replace oil since the 1850's in reality we have only been looking for an alternative for the last 10 years.

zygurat789

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Hydrogen?

The most abundant element in the universe, zero emissions (well, ok, water).

But it is very expensive to isolate.

HammerSmashedFace

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Hydrogen?

The most abundant element in the universe, zero emissions (well, ok, water).

Hydrogen is a carrier Harry, not a source, to extract energy from hydrogen takes more power then you get from it. Second law of thermodynamics tells us that there is no way of getting more energy out of something than you put in.

MatteH

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Hydrogen?

The most abundant element in the universe, zero emissions (well, ok, water).

Where are the hydrogen powered planes/cars/trains etc then?

Really2

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Hydrogen is a carrier Harry, not a source, to extract energy from hydrogen takes more power then you get from it. Second law of thermodynamics tells us that there is no way of getting more energy out of something than you put in.

But if you could make cheap renewable electricity it would be an option.

Mainly if the distance problems of electricity cars could not be overcome.

Really2

MatteH wrote: »

Where are the hydrogen powered planes/cars/trains etc then?

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/