(Untitled)

[languishinghack]

oh man's! it's been exactly a year since i last used this doohickey

new plan: let's play the lj game w/ less emo and more worthwhile

k.. so maybe i don't really have much worthwhile to say, seems like i'm only really good at taking things in, but no so much with the reworking them into something new

--

Comments

Interesting thoughts...

[quandary87]

Oh man I do miss talking to you, especially about stuff like this

Re: Interesting thoughts...

[uberjason]

Generally, I hate agreeing with you on topics like these, but here I have no choice but to. I agree on both points.

Re: Interesting thoughts...

[languishinghack]

1. Despite all of the war mongering, people (even Americans), are generally more or less peaceful. They might try to attack some other country, but the only other oil producing countries at this point are Norway, Russia, China, Venezuela, and Saudia Arabia. The first free are militarized, so it's very very unlikely that we'll attack them. Saudia Arabia can pay off any country that threatens it, so the only real alternative is Venezuela. But Chavez would probably burn the oil fields before letting the Americans get them

Re: Interesting thoughts...

[quandary87]

About using the military to acquire more resources: I didn't say this was the most efficient or even a feasible way to get more resources. I just suggest that it is what the United States, and in times of crisis, other militarized powers like China or Russia, would do. Government can hardly be expected to act efficiently, or even make plans that would be viable if they worked, can it? (example again, Iraq war, especially "Surge

[viciousweasel]

Hope you have better luck keeping your emo out of lj than I have.

I also forsee war over the scarce remaining resources a la Fallout but that's probably just because I've been drinking heavily.

[languishinghack]

The main problems I saw with fallout, is that they didn't explain agriculture at all. Plus the manufacture of arms is really really energy intensive, and I somehow doubt it will be worth it.

But yeah, on the whole, maybe that's what will happen

[jadedinoblivion]

hello! :D

as soon as i clean out my text message inbox i'll start, you know, sending them :P

this is an incredibly interesting prospect, but i don't actually see your whole woo smaller farms dealie happening. in any case, it wouldn't be without a fight, and it would be pretty freaking messy, mostly because i like railroads :( and you know, people like efficiency. it's developed into a core aspect of society. i think ultimately your plan would be inefficient. a lot of things deemed necessary to society cannot be created locally, for a plethora of reasons, and the horse and wagon thing generally isn't the fastest mode of transport --it's called 'snail mail' for a reason.

hippieeeeeeeeeeee :)

[jadedinoblivion]

and i like world trade! >:I

[jadedinoblivion]

but i'm cool with the population dropping! just not through isolationism. what an emo concept emo kid

:P

[languishinghack]

you want a better for inefficiency? try diversity, it means the same thing, look it up in the dictionary

actually, agribusiness is like the worst thing that could've happened to world agriculture. the only good thing about it is that it runs on oil (mostly transport + manufacture + processing), and that's going to run out.

world trade is good if it's reasonable. what we have right now is a joke. importing dog food from india while the people around the silos starve because they are no longer used for human food is not the way to go.

[nekokaze]

For a little bit I thought I was going to have to point out that your hoped-for future involved the loss of billions of population but you ended up clarifying that you were aware. And you did specify you'd rather them not starve, which I guess makes it not repugnant.

Anyway, if you do get such a society I think you'd just get a bounce back to a globalized society relatively quickly. There'd still be the resources for continued innovation (and what are governments going to spend their power on if not finding how to acquire more power?) and power shouldn't be an unsolvable problem in the long term.

But to think with too rosy a view of local governance is a mistake, I think. Recall that whatever the pains of modern nationalism and racism, an increase in resources has overall brought a decrease in tribalism, one of the most ugly and fundamental aspects of human nature. It's certainly possible we'd be able to hold onto a globalized view of humanity (or maybe just the nation, or the union-of-nations, depending on what we have now and to

[languishinghack]

"I think you'd just get a bounce back to a globalized society relatively quickly"

how? globalization requires shipping on a scale that has only been possible since containerization in the 1960s. without the oil to power ships and railroads, globalized society doesn't happen. sure you might still have trade due to a reemergence of sails and maybe even steam (though the number of trees wouldn't support that for long), but there's no way you could have tomatoes in january like we do now.

"There'd still be the resources for continued innovation"

which ones? peak oil has either already hit or is just about to (depending on who you listen to), and if we replace it all with nuclear, the entire supply of uranium might last 10 years. at best. coal is just ridiculous, and even then, the supplies aren't exactly sustainable. that leaves hydro, solar, and wind. but hydro is also out of the question since we've already hit capacity with it, not to mention the drying up of rivers like the colorado and volga. (nor even to begin to mention

[nekokaze]

I'm using your imaginary world. You're the one who specified power would be available, albeit on a limited scale. Humanity is not particularly known for giving control of its environment to fate just because to not do so is time consuming, difficult, and potentially wasteful. What I mean is people tend to be better at figuring out the impossible than anyone would ever expect. If they have evidence of past achievement this is probably even more true. By "relatively quickly" I may mean a century, but given enough time with minimal power extravagant things can be done. I mean I could certainly be wrong or overly optimistic about lengths of time but to forecast against past evidence indefinitely into the future seems more wrong and overly .... well, optimistic or pessimistic depending on your view.

To be hopeful beyond all reality is to be mistaken in my mind. It's a sort mistake you can easily live with, but also the type you should be aware of.

[languishinghack]

if people are so keen at averting disaster and adapting, why does our entire economy still rely on unsustainable practices and resources when we know full well that they are not sustainable.

humanity as a whole may be awesome, but the driving force today are multinational corporations with an eye out for the next quarter's earning and no further.

by the time shit hits the fan and everyone catches on to the fact that those in charge are not looking out for the interests of humanity, there won't be any manufacturing left to produce "miraculous technology" that will save the day and everyone's lifestyle

[knightofthesun]

hi!

[languishinghack]

<3!

[knightofthesun]

hey, i've been thinking about how i want to live with you sometime recently. keep me in mind when making plans for next summer, perhaps?

[languishinghack]

sounds amazing, only plans right are to send in my sea shepherd app

i might also go try and study abroad in piter over the spring semester, but if i do, i might get drafted while there and end up sailing the seas in the russian navy for the next 3 years