No time for lullabies

[Garrison0fMars]

I think one of the factors that makes comparison to previous declines dicey is the unprecedented power of international corporations Now the largest corporations are much larger than many nations. How this will influence the decline of the USA is impossible to foresee.

Probably suck the US dry and move onto the next host.

That's my bet anyway.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The CCCP was not a grand, wondrous empire that descended into apocalypse. It was a poorly governed cesspool that finally gave up to dissent.

I daresay it was doomed to fall sooner or later ever since Stalin's dumb policies. If anything I'm surprised it didn't collapse sooner.

 

[bokonon]

The United States is not an empire in the traditional sense, so we are already living in a post-empire world. Our resource consumers compete with other resource consumers in a more or less open market. We do not have colonies providing resources to us which they are not free to sell elsewhere.

The only sense in which it might be argued that we are an empire is when it comes to military hegemony. I'd argue that our current desire to play policeman to the world is actually a net drain on our productivity, and that if this desire could be curtailed our overall standard of living would rise rather than falling.

The claim that the article cited in the OP is making, that we are headed inevitably for grinding poverty, seems hysterical and overblown. We may indeed face a contraction in living standards if no economical substitute is found for petroleum and other fossil fuels, but the time frame for that is hardly the coming decade. The solutions he proposes -- essentially, the 70s "back-to-the-land" movement for the majority of the population -- seems naive and impractical.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Methinks the writer of said piece needs to pay closer attention to history. The notion that empires normally suffer cataclysmic collapses or indeed even necessarily collapse at all, is a rather weak one. The writers grasp of the UK is particularly pathetic, as is their grasp of the fate of their Empire. To attribute the UK's continued success post-empire to being able to "rent their island out to the American military as an unusually large aircraft carrier conveniently anchored right off the shores of Europe" displays an absolutely phenomenal ignorance of the subject matter.

All of this is, of course, even assuming that the USA has an empire, which is higly debatable.

I'd be interested to hear the reasons you think are for the UK's success post "Empire". I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, just interested in your take on it. Among the other things you stated.

 

[TFian]

The claim that the article cited in the OP is making, that we are headed inevitably for grinding poverty, seems hysterical and overblown. We may indeed face a contraction in living standards if no economical substitute is found for petroleum and other fossil fuels, but the time frame for that is hardly the coming decade.

It's not just Peak Oil, but other factors he lists. The fact that we're printing more money and leading our way to hyperinflation eerily resembles the old Weimer Republic.

The solutions he proposes -- essentially, the 70s "back-to-the-land" movement for the majority of the population -- seems naive and impractical.

Why? 1970s appropriate technology is the best way to live without abundant fossil fuels.

 

[tyr_13]

It's not just Peak Oil, but other factors he lists. The fact that we're printing more money and leading our way to hyperinflation eerily resembles the old Weimer Republic.

It was the only plausable factor he listed. And got a cite for how we are printing enough money to lead to hyperinflation?

Why? 1970s appropriate technology is the best way to live without abundant fossil fuels.

Evidence of that?

 

[theprestige]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly what are the "crawlspaces of society", and how the awareness that spreads in such places gains credibility.

 

[Eddie Dane]

The Ottoman empire collapsed.

It's still a nice place with great food.
I've been on holiday there.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Oh and: Peak Oil = biggest problem facing the world.

Answers: conservation, recycling, wind farms and most of all NUCLEAR.

Burning fossils is bad, Mmmmkay

 

[Skeptic]

Uh, well to be fair, I think he's saying it did fail, or am I misunderstanding something?

Errrrr.... about your avatar....

 

[Skeptic]

The problem is that we've heard the same "late capitalism is on the point of collapse" for at least the last century, and that some other system will replace it and save us, or at least help. But so far each of these new systems had itself collapsed first (Communism, Fascism...). I doubt "ecologism", the salvation du jour, will be any different. But even if it would be, it would mean little about his powers of prediction: eventually the USA will fail, since no country lasts forever; whomever will happen to be the predictor of catastrophe at that time will be hailed as the true prophet. But in reality it would just be luck.

 

[Garrison0fMars]

Errrrr.... about your avatar....

Yes? What about it?

 

[lionking]

You know, both you and Garrison are not addressing any of the arguments put forth by Greer, and are just focusing on the presenter (Me), which is a violation of the rules here. Please address the arguments, thank you.

I suggest you have a close look at the Membership Agreement. Greer is not a member and has put no argument. The opening post was very, very close to spamming anyway.

You have taken on the role of presenter and interpreter of Greer, and your interpretations will be addressed by other members. Perhaps you might try to get the "Wizard" to join and put his arguments directly?

 

[Garrison0fMars]

I have taken on the role of presenter and interpreter of Greer, and your interpretations will be addressed by other members. Perhaps you might try to get the "Wizard" to join and put his arguments directly?

I doubt he would. The "Grand" ArchDruid would probably brush off this forum as "Technofascists" (Yes, it's a term he's really used)

There's also the fact he can't censor his critics on this forum as well...

 

[TFian]

It was the only plausable factor he listed.

Not quite, remember the hyperinflation and the destabilization of our military as others.

And got a cite for how we are printing enough money to lead to hyperinflation?

Sure http://www.cnbc.com/id/40008544/Fed_s_Printing_Press_to_Fund_Deficit_for_6_Months

Evidence of that?

Well think about it this way. Isn't a lifestyle that uses little to no fossil fuels more appropriate for a response to well, scarce fossil fuels?

If it catches on, as it appears to be doing just at the moment, it becomes the flywheel providing stability for the whole process; government programs come and go, one might say, but backyard gardens endure – which is one reason why we’ve still got a viable organic gardening movement thirty years after the alternative scene that launched it crashed into ruin.

Now it’s only fair to say that 1970s appropriate technology will not save the world, or the United States, from the consequences of the quarter century of malign neglect that occupied the time we might have spent getting ready for peak oil. It is very late in the day; as the Hirsch Report pointed out five years ago – ironically, right around the time global oil production peaked – adapting to peak oil without drastic social disruptions requires major changes to begin twenty years before the peak. We missed that chance, and so there are going to be drastic social disruptions. The question is whether there are things that can be done to make their impact less devastating and their long-term consequences less severe – to cushion, in effect, these opening phases of the Long Descent.

 

[TFian]

The problem is that we've heard the same "late capitalism is on the point of collapse" for at least the last century, and that some other system will replace it and save us, or at least help. But so far each of these new systems had itself collapsed first (Communism, Fascism...). I doubt "ecologism", the salvation du jour, will be any different. But even if it would be, it would mean little about his powers of prediction: eventually the USA will fail, since no country lasts forever; whomever will happen to be the predictor of catastrophe at that time will be hailed as the true prophet. But in reality it would just be luck.

We're not arguing some better "replacement" is coming around. We're in fact arguing things will just be getting a whole lot worse.

 

[tyr_13]

Not quite, remember the hyperinflation and the destabilization of our military as others.



Sure http://www.cnbc.com/id/40008544/Fed_s_Printing_Press_to_Fund_Deficit_for_6_Months

Those are not currently plausible, and you linked to an article that doesn't support the claim. To be clear, you aren't claiming 'inflation' but 'hyperinflation'.

Well think about it this way. Isn't a lifestyle that uses little to no fossil fuels more appropriate for a response to well, scarce fossil fuels?

Why would that make the 70's tech the best response? There are more, better, newer technologies and techniques that use little to no fossil fuels. They aren't hippytastic, but so what?

If it catches on, as it appears to be doing just at the moment, it becomes the flywheel providing stability for the whole process; government programs come and go, one might say, but backyard gardens endure – which is one reason why we’ve still got a viable organic gardening movement thirty years after the alternative scene that launched it crashed into ruin.

Organic standards ban water extracted phosphorus and air sequestered nitrogen. Small backyard gardens are horribly inefficient. Even though I love mine, it does not scale up well for things like cities. But you don't want cities, so for you it's a plus. For reality, it's a non-starter. Before you object, I'm all for community and roof-top gardening, but I'm not believing it can feed the population.

Again, there are other ways to do more traditional large scale agriculture with little to no fossil fuels so that we don't have to revert to horticulture.

Now it’s only fair to say that 1970s appropriate technology will not save the world, or the United States, from the consequences of the quarter century of malign neglect that occupied the time we might have spent getting ready for peak oil. It is very late in the day; as the Hirsch Report pointed out five years ago – ironically, right around the time global oil production peaked – adapting to peak oil without drastic social disruptions requires major changes to begin twenty years before the peak. We missed that chance, and so there are going to be drastic social disruptions. The question is whether there are things that can be done to make their impact less devastating and their long-term consequences less severe – to cushion, in effect, these opening phases of the Long Descent.

And there we have more peak oil nonsense that ignores all the good tech that we've developed over the years and insists nothing, or way too little, is being done about it.

I can see where this is going.

 

[Halfcentaur]

As long as I can play World of Warcraft,...

 

[Mark6]

From what I remember, the "collapse" started in the 80s, and accelerated into a free for all in the very early 90s. Two things to remember about this "collapse".

Before the collapse, Russia and it's satellite states already had a terrible living standard compared to the first world, well back into the 70s, possibly earlier. Frankly, life in the Soviet Union sucked, and I'm not sure it was ever a place you'd want to live. This "Collapse" also wasn't some sort of apocalyptic event, but simply a change in governmental structures and the powers that be. Things still haven't really improved in Russia, but that's not because of resource constraints.

Also keep in mind that an average Russian does not live significantly worse today than he did in 1980. In fact he lives better, both in terms of material goods and in terms of governmental oppression -- even though both are still pretty bad by Western standards. So collapse of Soviet Union was hardly "apocalyptic".

In fact it illustrates what I mentioned on TFian's "end of Internet" thread -- doomsayers love to say "every civilization collapsed, why should ours be different?", -- ignoring that except for a few deliberate genocides, nearly every "collapse of civilization" was merely ruling class/religion being replaced by another ruling class/religion. Ordinary people barely noticed most "civilization collapses".

 

[TFian]

Those are not currently plausible, and you linked to an article that doesn't support the claim. To be clear, you aren't claiming 'inflation' but 'hyperinflation'.

What's the difference in what was pointed out in the article? The fed printing money to pay off debt is what I'd call hyperinflation.

What's not plausible? Cutting back on our empire? They're are already talks on both isles now of cutting back on military spending, and the minute we do that, our living standard will begin to plummet. It's only achievable by having a vast expansive empire. Without it, you become a third world country.

Why would that make the 70's tech the best response? There are more, better, newer technologies and techniques that use little to no fossil fuels. They aren't hippytastic, but so what?

Well because simply, they use no fossil fuels. But ok, what newer technologies and techniques do you like over 1970s appropriate technology?

Organic standards ban water extracted phosphorus and air sequestered nitrogen.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here?

Small backyard gardens are horribly inefficient.

Inefficient at what?

Even though I love mine, it does not scale up well for things like cities.

Well we're not thinking about scaling up for cities. We're trying to promote things that will save the individual and their family, most people are already doomed and we can't save them.

Before you object, I'm all for community and roof-top gardening, but I'm not believing it can feed the population.

Since population will be reduced from failing public health and starvation, we don't have to look at ways of sustaining our unsustainable bloated population.

Again, there are other ways to do more traditional large scale agriculture with little to no fossil fuels so that we don't have to revert to horticulture.

Examples?

And there we have more peak oil nonsense that ignores all the good tech that we've developed over the years and insists nothing, or way too little, is being done about it.

I can see where this is going.

Examples please?

We have to remember there are no easy solutions -- in fact, there are no solutions at all, not at this point. There's just a lot of hard work to save what can be saved in the limited time we've got.

Remember The Grand Archdruid's life lesson "there's no brighter future". The myth of progress is just that, a myth.