Like many other migratory species, humans roamed the planet unfettered by fences, walls, or borders for millions of years. Trouble started when the first person put a fence up and said “Everything on this side is mine.”
Now that the entire earth has been laid claim to, we seemed to have fenced ourselves into a corner. We define ourselves by our borders. We must defend our borders. It’s Us and Them. We even invent flag symbols to represent the area inside those imaginary lines crisscrossing our world.
I’ve seen the photos taken from space. Those lines aren’t really there. God didn’t create them, man did. And I do mean man. Women just seem naturally more willing to share, while men are prone to building walls, putting up a No Tresspassing sign and using a shotgun to enforce it.
Without borders, there’d be no illegal immigration, and possibly a lot less war. Look at all the trouble caused by the lines the British drew around Iraq without regard to the cultural makeup of the region. Look at the battle over the constantly shifting borders of Israel. All that bloodshed and arguing over a few arbitrary lines drawn on a map.
It occurs to me that maybe we’d be better off if we just erased those lines.
One Earth. One People.
Reckless, your above post has got to be a joke. There is no was a rational, intelligent person could make such a comment unless your point was to throw in a little male bashing and to further your anti-Israel agenda.
If it’s all about the lines, then how do you explain the killing, no the Genocide that is taking place between the Sunni’s and Shiites? The Hutus and Tutsi? (and I could name many others) These conflicts are not confined to borders, but have deep seated roots in Religious and cultural differences.
The creation of countries came about as a natural progressing from the city states that emerged when tribes of people sought to protect themselves from others in order to ensure their survivability. What you failed to mention is that as people “roamed” the planet, they slaughtered anyone not of their tribe as they came across them. Your simplistic analogy of “the good ol days” never existed. Since the beginning of time man (and women too) has engaged in violence against one another, and its not about to stop. The last time there was one Earth and one people was when Adam and Eve were here, after they had kids, that went out the window.
“Look at all the trouble caused by the lines the British drew around Iraq without regard to the cultural makeup of the region. Look at the battle over the constantly shifting borders of Israel. All that bloodshed and arguing over a few arbitrary lines drawn on a map.” The fighting you are talking about has been going on thousands of years, it isn’t because of borders. Insinuating it is shows a total lack in your study of world history.
If you want to know a little history, here it is for you…
Origins of Iraq:
The first organised conflict between local Bedouin Arab tribes and Iranian forces seems to have been in 634, when the Arabs were defeated at the Battle of the Bridge. There was a force of some 5,000 Muslims under Abū `Ubayd ath-Thaqafī, which was routed by the Iranians. Around 636, a much larger Arab Muslim force under Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās defeated the main Iranian army at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah and moved on to sack the capital of the Iranian Empire, Ctesiphon. By the end of 638, the Muslims had conquered almost all of Western Iranian provinces (modern Iraq), and the last Sassanid Emperor, Yazdegerd III, had fled to central and then northern Iran, where he was killed in 651.
The Islamic conquest was followed by mass immigration of Arabs from eastern Arabia and Mazun (Oman) to Khvarvārān. These new arrivals did not disperse and settle throughout the country; instead they established two new garrison cities, at al-Kūfah, near ancient Babylon, and at Basrah in the south.
The intention was that the Muslims should be a separate community of fighting men and their families living off taxes paid by the local inhabitants. In the north of the North eastern Iran, Mosul began to emerge as the most important city and the base of a Muslim governor and garrison. Apart from the Iranian elite and the Zoroastrian priests, who did not convert to Islam and thus lost their lives and property, most of the Iranian peoples became Muslim and were allowed to keep their possessions.
Khvarvārān, now became a province of the Muslim Caliphate, known as `Irāq.
During the late 14th and early 15th centuries, the Black Sheep Turkmen ruled the area now known as Iraq. In 1466, the White Sheep Turkmen defeated the Black Sheep and took control. Later, most of Iraq would become part of the Safavid Empire that arose in Iran in 1501.
In the 16th century Iraq became a part of the Ottoman Empire, although the Safavids temporarily recaptured much of Iraq during the first part of the 17th century.
The shifting borders of that region has been going on since the beginning of time, blaming the British is just ignorant.
Reckless, your above post has got to be a joke. There is no was a rational, intelligent person could make such a comment unless your point was to throw in a little male bashing and to further your anti-Israel agenda.
If it’s all about the lines, then how do you explain the killing, no the Genocide that is taking place between the Sunni’s and Shiites? The Hutus and Tutsi? (and I could name many others) These conflicts are not confined to borders, but have deep seated roots in Religious and cultural differences.
The creation of countries came about as a natural progressing from the city states that emerged when tribes of people sought to protect themselves from others in order to ensure their survivability. What you failed to mention is that as people “roamed” the planet, they slaughtered anyone not of their tribe as they came across them. Your simplistic analogy of “the good ol days” never existed. Since the beginning of time man (and women too) has engaged in violence against one another, and its not about to stop. The last time there was one Earth and one people was when Adam and Eve were here, after they had kids, that went out the window.
“Look at all the trouble caused by the lines the British drew around Iraq without regard to the cultural makeup of the region. Look at the battle over the constantly shifting borders of Israel. All that bloodshed and arguing over a few arbitrary lines drawn on a map.” The fighting you are talking about has been going on thousands of years, it isn’t because of borders. Insinuating it is shows a total lack in your study of world history.
If you want to know a little history, here it is for you…
Origins of Iraq:
The first organised conflict between local Bedouin Arab tribes and Iranian forces seems to have been in 634, when the Arabs were defeated at the Battle of the Bridge. There was a force of some 5,000 Muslims under Abū `Ubayd ath-Thaqafī, which was routed by the Iranians. Around 636, a much larger Arab Muslim force under Sa`d ibn Abī Waqqās defeated the main Iranian army at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah and moved on to sack the capital of the Iranian Empire, Ctesiphon. By the end of 638, the Muslims had conquered almost all of Western Iranian provinces (modern Iraq), and the last Sassanid Emperor, Yazdegerd III, had fled to central and then northern Iran, where he was killed in 651.
The Islamic conquest was followed by mass immigration of Arabs from eastern Arabia and Mazun (Oman) to Khvarvārān. These new arrivals did not disperse and settle throughout the country; instead they established two new garrison cities, at al-Kūfah, near ancient Babylon, and at Basrah in the south.
The intention was that the Muslims should be a separate community of fighting men and their families living off taxes paid by the local inhabitants. In the north of the North eastern Iran, Mosul began to emerge as the most important city and the base of a Muslim governor and garrison. Apart from the Iranian elite and the Zoroastrian priests, who did not convert to Islam and thus lost their lives and property, most of the Iranian peoples became Muslim and were allowed to keep their possessions.
Khvarvārān, now became a province of the Muslim Caliphate, known as `Irāq.
During the late 14th and early 15th centuries, the Black Sheep Turkmen ruled the area now known as Iraq. In 1466, the White Sheep Turkmen defeated the Black Sheep and took control. Later, most of Iraq would become part of the Safavid Empire that arose in Iran in 1501.
In the 16th century Iraq became a part of the Ottoman Empire, although the Safavids temporarily recaptured much of Iraq during the first part of the 17th century.
The shifting borders of that region has been going on since the beginning of time, blaming the British is just ignorant.
Oh come on alpha lighten up! Can’t you just allow me some unrealistic idealism once in awhile?
I didn’t say eliminating borders would eliminate war, I said there’d be a lot less of it. And I wasn’t bashing the British or Israel, I was just giving the most obvious and recent for instance.
Regarding Iraq, there have been numerous invaders and conquerors throughout it’s long essentially borderless history. Still, if the British hadn’t sliced off Kuwait, there wouldn’t have been a Gulf War 1. The Sunnis, Shia and Kurds probably wouldn’t be killing each other right now if they’d all had their own autonomy.
As for Israel, you know as well as I do that 90% of the animosity toward that nation has come about because Israel has usurped territory once belonging to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
Male bashing? Just calling it like I see it. Name the last time a war was started or genocide committed by women.
Oh come on alpha lighten up! Can’t you just allow me some unrealistic idealism once in awhile?
I didn’t say eliminating borders would eliminate war, I said there’d be a lot less of it. And I wasn’t bashing the British or Israel, I was just giving the most obvious and recent for instance.
Regarding Iraq, there have been numerous invaders and conquerors throughout it’s long essentially borderless history. Still, if the British hadn’t sliced off Kuwait, there wouldn’t have been a Gulf War 1. The Sunnis, Shia and Kurds probably wouldn’t be killing each other right now if they’d all had their own autonomy.
As for Israel, you know as well as I do that 90% of the animosity toward that nation has come about because Israel has usurped territory once belonging to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.
Male bashing? Just calling it like I see it. Name the last time a war was started or genocide committed by women.
GOTCHA!! : )
GOTCHA!! : )
Or… did I get you? ; – >
Or… did I get you? ; – >
In the liberal mind, men and woman are the same, unless the man can be shown to be inferior to the woman, then they’re suddenly different.
G, you’re above this sort of thing. There is a lot more going on with origins of conflict than the issue of men being more violent than women.
In the liberal mind, men and woman are the same, unless the man can be shown to be inferior to the woman, then they’re suddenly different.
G, you’re above this sort of thing. There is a lot more going on with origins of conflict than the issue of men being more violent than women.
Alpha,
Reckless did not post a joke, she’s advocating communism, or at least the elimination of private property. She wants a “new world order.”
In “The Commonwealth of Oceana,” James Harrington (d. September 10, 1677) theorized that political power, and by extension tyranny, is a consequence—not the cause—of private property. That, I think, is Reckless’ premise.
I am not a fan of communism or socialism. In “Politics,” Aristotle, points out the central problem of communism:
“…[T]hat which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it… If [people sharing common interest] do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much.”
~Aristotle, “Politics”
That’s remained an immutable truth since Aristotle wrote it in about 350 BC.
Regarding males… Reckless makes a good point about men. In fact, her statement, “…putting up a No Tresspassing sign and using a shotgun to enforce it,” reminds me of something William Blackstone, who I quoted the other day in another post, said on the subject of trespassing. In essence, he said that a landowner is justified in killing any stranger on his land between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King. Why? It is unreasonable to expect a person to recognize an agent of the King in the dark.
Everyone knows a woman would never contemplate such a thing.
Cheers,
Alpha,
Reckless did not post a joke, she’s advocating communism, or at least the elimination of private property. She wants a “new world order.”
In “The Commonwealth of Oceana,” James Harrington (d. September 10, 1677) theorized that political power, and by extension tyranny, is a consequence—not the cause—of private property. That, I think, is Reckless’ premise.
I am not a fan of communism or socialism. In “Politics,” Aristotle, points out the central problem of communism:
“…[T]hat which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it… If [people sharing common interest] do not share equally enjoyments and toils, those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain of those who labor little and receive or consume much.”
~Aristotle, “Politics”
That’s remained an immutable truth since Aristotle wrote it in about 350 BC.
Regarding males… Reckless makes a good point about men. In fact, her statement, “…putting up a No Tresspassing sign and using a shotgun to enforce it,” reminds me of something William Blackstone, who I quoted the other day in another post, said on the subject of trespassing. In essence, he said that a landowner is justified in killing any stranger on his land between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King. Why? It is unreasonable to expect a person to recognize an agent of the King in the dark.
Everyone knows a woman would never contemplate such a thing.
Cheers,
Golly, and I thought I was just making a few interesting observations! I didn’t know this was going to turn into a treatise on the equality of the sexes.
Sorry men, but the male animal is generally the more territorial and more violent than the female, that’s just a fact of nature. I have yet to see anyone give any proof that women are just as violent as men. Very few hate crimes are committed by women and it’s probably safe to say a war has never been started by a woman (Helen of Troy doesn’t count; she may have been the cause but not the perpetrator).
I’m not advocating a New World Order, Communism or Socialism. I’m advocating reality and common sense. Private property is an illusion. Who was the first person to claim to own property, and who gave it to him? Aboriginal cultures, while they did have territories, did not have the concept of owning land. That was a fabrication of men, men who conquered and dominated and made up their own laws to benefit and enrich themselves. The idea of the Commons has gone the way of the DoDo, and we’re all the poorer for it.
To me the most ridiculous example of the need to create borders and declare land ownership is Antarctica’s pie shaped divisions. Proof that everyone wants their slice.
Golly, and I thought I was just making a few interesting observations! I didn’t know this was going to turn into a treatise on the equality of the sexes.
Sorry men, but the male animal is generally the more territorial and more violent than the female, that’s just a fact of nature. I have yet to see anyone give any proof that women are just as violent as men. Very few hate crimes are committed by women and it’s probably safe to say a war has never been started by a woman (Helen of Troy doesn’t count; she may have been the cause but not the perpetrator).
I’m not advocating a New World Order, Communism or Socialism. I’m advocating reality and common sense. Private property is an illusion. Who was the first person to claim to own property, and who gave it to him? Aboriginal cultures, while they did have territories, did not have the concept of owning land. That was a fabrication of men, men who conquered and dominated and made up their own laws to benefit and enrich themselves. The idea of the Commons has gone the way of the DoDo, and we’re all the poorer for it.
To me the most ridiculous example of the need to create borders and declare land ownership is Antarctica’s pie shaped divisions. Proof that everyone wants their slice.
One of the most interesting statements I’ve ever heard came from a woman who claims to be both a passifist and an atheist.
She said, “If anyone ever harmed one of my children, I swear to God I’d kill them.”
I’m pretty sure she didn’t mean the children.
Cheers,
One of the most interesting statements I’ve ever heard came from a woman who claims to be both a passifist and an atheist.
She said, “If anyone ever harmed one of my children, I swear to God I’d kill them.”
I’m pretty sure she didn’t mean the children.
Cheers,
A perfect example of our animal nature. The one thing that can universally incite a female to violence is a threat to her offspring.
I can think of two other instances when a woman might become violent;; jealousy and rage.
Women might kill from emotion but only men kill for greed and power.
A perfect example of our animal nature. The one thing that can universally incite a female to violence is a threat to her offspring.
I can think of two other instances when a woman might become violent;; jealousy and rage.
Women might kill from emotion but only men kill for greed and power.
I’m willing to stipulate the male is the more violent of the sexes… I’d prefer to hear more about what you have to say about the implications of property ownership…
Cheers,
I’m willing to stipulate the male is the more violent of the sexes… I’d prefer to hear more about what you have to say about the implications of property ownership…
Cheers,
I was waiting for alpha6 to give us an in depth history of property ownership.
Here’s one to mull over…I don’t know about ownership laws in other countries, but in America do we ever really own property? If you don’t pay your property taxes, your land, or home, or business gets confiscated. And then there’s eminent domain.
When Manhattan Island was bought from the Native Americans for a few trinkets and beads, they thought they were scamming the whites. After all, who ever heard of people owning land? It belonged to the earth, to the maker, to the animals and plants. Guess we had the last laugh though. Ditto for Indian lands continually promised then taken away from every tribe in North America. Those poor saps just didn’t get the concept of property ownership. Maybe because WE invented it!
Never trust whitey.
I was waiting for alpha6 to give us an in depth history of property ownership.
Here’s one to mull over…I don’t know about ownership laws in other countries, but in America do we ever really own property? If you don’t pay your property taxes, your land, or home, or business gets confiscated. And then there’s eminent domain.
When Manhattan Island was bought from the Native Americans for a few trinkets and beads, they thought they were scamming the whites. After all, who ever heard of people owning land? It belonged to the earth, to the maker, to the animals and plants. Guess we had the last laugh though. Ditto for Indian lands continually promised then taken away from every tribe in North America. Those poor saps just didn’t get the concept of property ownership. Maybe because WE invented it!
Never trust whitey.
Just out of curiosity, do you own any property (land/home)?
Cheers,
Just out of curiosity, do you own any property (land/home)?
Cheers,
Nope. And I never will.
A wise man once told me that if you want to be free, work for yourself and never own property. I’ve lived by those words ever since.
Nope. And I never will.
A wise man once told me that if you want to be free, work for yourself and never own property. I’ve lived by those words ever since.
[...work for yourself and never own property.]
I guessing you’re not a Real Estate Agent.
Since the concept of private property is firmly ensconsed in American life, how would you change this?
Cheers,
[...work for yourself and never own property.]
I guessing you’re not a Real Estate Agent.
Since the concept of private property is firmly ensconsed in American life, how would you change this?
Cheers,
[I guessing you're not a Real Estate Agent.]
Heh heh, no way! That would violate my ethical sensibilities, which are based on Gandhi’s Seven Blunders of the World;
1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle
I believe #1 applies to Real Estate, which of course isn’t “real.”
How would I change the concept of property ownership in America? That’s like asking how to lasso the moon. Can’t be done. But if you’ve read my Post-Oil post, you know that this will take care of itself, sooner than later.
[I guessing you're not a Real Estate Agent.]
Heh heh, no way! That would violate my ethical sensibilities, which are based on Gandhi’s Seven Blunders of the World;
1. Wealth without work
2. Pleasure without conscience
3. Knowledge without character
4. Commerce without morality
5. Science without humanity
6. Worship without sacrifice
7. Politics without principle
I believe #1 applies to Real Estate, which of course isn’t “real.”
How would I change the concept of property ownership in America? That’s like asking how to lasso the moon. Can’t be done. But if you’ve read my Post-Oil post, you know that this will take care of itself, sooner than later.
Mitch Dot,
Looks like you got great utilitarian value from Wikipedia. Nonetheless, as usual, your thoughts are insightful. And I think you point out the main problem; namely, how to change the concept of private property. No small task–as Reckless alludes to, it likely would take an economic collapse of epic proportions before society would truly re-examine our property ownership structure.
I once polled friends and acquaintances (quite informally I might add) about the most damaging, destructive and/or divisive forces in the world today. Number one with a bullet was RELIGION and number two was NATIONALISM. Ahead of discrimination, communism, capitalism and any other global dynamic. However, those are probably the two problems humanity will never choose to address absent a total collapse of civilization as we know it. Dogmatic organized deity worship and flag-waving is strictly off-limits to true criticism except for the few who are willing to be branded hippy-dippy one-world peace-love-dope kooks. Even the most mainstream of that group is branded *gasp* as “wacko liberals” or some deviant strain thereof.
The funny thing is that everyone can see the problem–our sordid history of violence against each other is glaringly obvious–but the knee-jerk reaction is to chalk it up to the “violent nature” of homo sapiens and shrug the shoulders. “That’s just the way we are–now get off my property before I put a cap in your ***.”
For grins and giggles, you can read the rational “rule of law” origins that helped establish real property rights in the United States, Johnson v. M’Intosh.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/JOHNSON_V_MCINTOSH_1823.HTM
It was the first case in our real property class that everyone takes in their first year of law school. If the twisted logic used to validate the rights of European conquerers vis-a-vis the rights of Native Americans doesn’t make your stomach churn, you’re living in denial, baby.
Hey, here’s an idea–maybe Gould Construction could hire some of the Native Americans who have been bent over for a few hundred years (at least the ones who aren’t blackjack dealers).
Thanks for the post, Reckless.
Mitch Dot,
Looks like you got great utilitarian value from Wikipedia. Nonetheless, as usual, your thoughts are insightful. And I think you point out the main problem; namely, how to change the concept of private property. No small task–as Reckless alludes to, it likely would take an economic collapse of epic proportions before society would truly re-examine our property ownership structure.
I once polled friends and acquaintances (quite informally I might add) about the most damaging, destructive and/or divisive forces in the world today. Number one with a bullet was RELIGION and number two was NATIONALISM. Ahead of discrimination, communism, capitalism and any other global dynamic. However, those are probably the two problems humanity will never choose to address absent a total collapse of civilization as we know it. Dogmatic organized deity worship and flag-waving is strictly off-limits to true criticism except for the few who are willing to be branded hippy-dippy one-world peace-love-dope kooks. Even the most mainstream of that group is branded *gasp* as “wacko liberals” or some deviant strain thereof.
The funny thing is that everyone can see the problem–our sordid history of violence against each other is glaringly obvious–but the knee-jerk reaction is to chalk it up to the “violent nature” of homo sapiens and shrug the shoulders. “That’s just the way we are–now get off my property before I put a cap in your ***.”
For grins and giggles, you can read the rational “rule of law” origins that helped establish real property rights in the United States, Johnson v. M’Intosh.
http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/USSCT_Cases/JOHNSON_V_MCINTOSH_1823.HTM
It was the first case in our real property class that everyone takes in their first year of law school. If the twisted logic used to validate the rights of European conquerers vis-a-vis the rights of Native Americans doesn’t make your stomach churn, you’re living in denial, baby.
Hey, here’s an idea–maybe Gould Construction could hire some of the Native Americans who have been bent over for a few hundred years (at least the ones who aren’t blackjack dealers).
Thanks for the post, Reckless.
Thanks for the link Rat. It explains a lot. Nothing like a bit of legalese mumbo jumbo to prove one’s claims. Still, nothing beats the Israelites claim that God gave them that land between the Jordan and the Sea. The old Bible deed trick.
Regarding the problems implicit in the concept of ownership, consider that there are aboriginal cultures still in existence today that don’t even have words for mine and yours. All goods are shared; food, clothes, weapons, homes, animals, etc. Would that eliminate a helluva lot of arguing or what?
Thanks for the link Rat. It explains a lot. Nothing like a bit of legalese mumbo jumbo to prove one’s claims. Still, nothing beats the Israelites claim that God gave them that land between the Jordan and the Sea. The old Bible deed trick.
Regarding the problems implicit in the concept of ownership, consider that there are aboriginal cultures still in existence today that don’t even have words for mine and yours. All goods are shared; food, clothes, weapons, homes, animals, etc. Would that eliminate a helluva lot of arguing or what?
God must have conveyed the property to them by quit-claim deed, without any express or implied warranties.
God must have conveyed the property to them by quit-claim deed, without any express or implied warranties.
Wharf Rat,
Notwithstanding the well-founded criticism of Wikipedia, I find it a great place to cut to the heart of a definition on a concept “property ownership,” or “eminent domain.” Google is usually my next resort.
Johnson v. McIntosh reminds me of an email that circulates from time to time. A letter from a lawyer requests more information on a deed on a piece of land, and a reply from another lawyer traces the ownership through the Louisiana Purchase, back to God… which I think, perhaps short of the biblical reference, is where you and Reckless would prefer we were.
I understand your “chalking this up to the violent nature of humans and shrugging the shoulders” frustration. It’s kind of like saying, “That sucks” without offering a better solution…
But isn’t that exactly what you’re doing with this Utopian idea?
Cheers,
Wharf Rat,
Notwithstanding the well-founded criticism of Wikipedia, I find it a great place to cut to the heart of a definition on a concept “property ownership,” or “eminent domain.” Google is usually my next resort.
Johnson v. McIntosh reminds me of an email that circulates from time to time. A letter from a lawyer requests more information on a deed on a piece of land, and a reply from another lawyer traces the ownership through the Louisiana Purchase, back to God… which I think, perhaps short of the biblical reference, is where you and Reckless would prefer we were.
I understand your “chalking this up to the violent nature of humans and shrugging the shoulders” frustration. It’s kind of like saying, “That sucks” without offering a better solution…
But isn’t that exactly what you’re doing with this Utopian idea?
Cheers,
Aw, it’s more fun to bitch than to come up with solutions.
We’re all just bumbling around in the dark here anyway. At least we can entertain ourselves and each other with Utopian ideas, even if they never have a chance of being realized. I find thinking abstractly about broadly unquestioned conventions to be highly amusing…as long as I don’t get attached to finding a solution.
It helps to be a practicing Taoist.
Aw, it’s more fun to bitch than to come up with solutions.
We’re all just bumbling around in the dark here anyway. At least we can entertain ourselves and each other with Utopian ideas, even if they never have a chance of being realized. I find thinking abstractly about broadly unquestioned conventions to be highly amusing…as long as I don’t get attached to finding a solution.
It helps to be a practicing Taoist.
[It helps to be a practicing Taoist.]
Careful, now, your wu wei is showing…
Cheers,
[It helps to be a practicing Taoist.]
Careful, now, your wu wei is showing…
Cheers,
Thank you for noticing!
Thank you for noticing!
That’s a great point, Mitch. It is always easy to point out flaws in something, but very difficult to provide useful solutions. I usually have suggestions to try to improve things, but 1) I try not to preach too much (perhaps unsuccessfully); and 2) I realize that at best an individual might have a germ of an idea that may then lead to something else more sophisticated after it has been tossed around, poked and prodded by the collective brain cells of many.
One gripe you will always hear from me results from the fact that our countrymen often say: “the U.S. is the greatest country in the history of the world.” That is often followed by some variation of: “if you want to criticize our country, move to ________ where they don’t have it as well.” My gripe is that many want to rest on the laurels of past accomplishments. Where is the drive to make something better? History demonstrates that there is nothing remarkable about preserving the status quo. What I’d like to know is: what is the next step?
It is funny you used the word “utopia”, because I have a rudimentary idea concerning the gap in wealth distribution that friends have dubbed “wharftopia.” [insert my real name for wharf]. It has to do with a national wage scale that cuts off the extreme top end of annual income and raises the low end in a googly-eyed vision of poverty eradication. The wage scale is based upon competence and performance, not choice of profession. For example, a kick-ass teacher or janitor could conceivably make more income than a slacker/incompetent in upper management.
So I do indeed try to offer ideas instead of just criticizing. I will share with those who are interested, but I don’t want to bore those that aren’t. And of course what I really enjoy is hearing the creative ideas of others.
That is likely one of the reasons I like Reckless’ posts. It is not necessarily that I agree with everything she says, but she is a progressive thinker who will step outside the box and take a chance with a perspective that might be flamed by those in a mental straightjacket.
That’s a great point, Mitch. It is always easy to point out flaws in something, but very difficult to provide useful solutions. I usually have suggestions to try to improve things, but 1) I try not to preach too much (perhaps unsuccessfully); and 2) I realize that at best an individual might have a germ of an idea that may then lead to something else more sophisticated after it has been tossed around, poked and prodded by the collective brain cells of many.
One gripe you will always hear from me results from the fact that our countrymen often say: “the U.S. is the greatest country in the history of the world.” That is often followed by some variation of: “if you want to criticize our country, move to ________ where they don’t have it as well.” My gripe is that many want to rest on the laurels of past accomplishments. Where is the drive to make something better? History demonstrates that there is nothing remarkable about preserving the status quo. What I’d like to know is: what is the next step?
It is funny you used the word “utopia”, because I have a rudimentary idea concerning the gap in wealth distribution that friends have dubbed “wharftopia.” [insert my real name for wharf]. It has to do with a national wage scale that cuts off the extreme top end of annual income and raises the low end in a googly-eyed vision of poverty eradication. The wage scale is based upon competence and performance, not choice of profession. For example, a kick-ass teacher or janitor could conceivably make more income than a slacker/incompetent in upper management.
So I do indeed try to offer ideas instead of just criticizing. I will share with those who are interested, but I don’t want to bore those that aren’t. And of course what I really enjoy is hearing the creative ideas of others.
That is likely one of the reasons I like Reckless’ posts. It is not necessarily that I agree with everything she says, but she is a progressive thinker who will step outside the box and take a chance with a perspective that might be flamed by those in a mental straightjacket.
["wharftopia." (insert my real name for wharf)]
You mean Wharf Rat’s not your real name?;-)
You went from private property to a National Wage Scale.
Just to make sure I’m tracking with you on this… are you suggesting the problem isn’t private property per se, but the attainability, in terms of annual income, of private property?
Cheers,
["wharftopia." (insert my real name for wharf)]
You mean Wharf Rat’s not your real name?;-)
You went from private property to a National Wage Scale.
Just to make sure I’m tracking with you on this… are you suggesting the problem isn’t private property per se, but the attainability, in terms of annual income, of private property?
Cheers,
No, that was just an anecdote to illustrate the fact I understand your point about having ideas instead of just criticizing everything, and to point out the ironic accuracy in your use of the term utopia.
Distribution of wealth/income certainly merits a separate topical discussion.
No, that was just an anecdote to illustrate the fact I understand your point about having ideas instead of just criticizing everything, and to point out the ironic accuracy in your use of the term utopia.
Distribution of wealth/income certainly merits a separate topical discussion.
Dang, I just saw that someone on the internet is using my “topia.” Guess I’ll have to permantly dub it “Wharftopia.”
Dang, I just saw that someone on the internet is using my “topia.” Guess I’ll have to permantly dub it “Wharftopia.”
[Wharftopia]
Given your alias’s Grateful Dead reference, it works for me…
Cheers,
[Wharftopia]
Given your alias’s Grateful Dead reference, it works for me…
Cheers,
Late comment: maybe too late?
Anyway there is progressive and then there is making generalizations and pulling things out of your bum.
Do you know why aboriginals on many continents could possibly live in the circumstances you describe? Because there was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people that there are today. When populations begin to expand they start fighting for resources and I don’t think it is an accident that we have worked out the arrangements of borders and private property that we have today. To date I think it is the best facilitator of peace.
Tragedy of the Commons? Isn’t this a valid theory that has been observed over and over again?
I concede for the sake of discussion everyone should say and propose whatever they want, but wouldn’t it be more meaningful if we actually thought about what we said and meant it as more than abstract fluff? Maybe if we truly cared about being progressive we would, everyday, critically analyze our own assumptions we take for granted before we espoused them publicly. I’m new to blogging and I think it’s awesome but I wish individual bloggers would work to be more than conduits of verbal diarrhea.
Late comment: maybe too late?
Anyway there is progressive and then there is making generalizations and pulling things out of your bum.
Do you know why aboriginals on many continents could possibly live in the circumstances you describe? Because there was a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of people that there are today. When populations begin to expand they start fighting for resources and I don’t think it is an accident that we have worked out the arrangements of borders and private property that we have today. To date I think it is the best facilitator of peace.
Tragedy of the Commons? Isn’t this a valid theory that has been observed over and over again?
I concede for the sake of discussion everyone should say and propose whatever they want, but wouldn’t it be more meaningful if we actually thought about what we said and meant it as more than abstract fluff? Maybe if we truly cared about being progressive we would, everyday, critically analyze our own assumptions we take for granted before we espoused them publicly. I’m new to blogging and I think it’s awesome but I wish individual bloggers would work to be more than conduits of verbal diarrhea.
Starters…
From “G”…”I have yet to see anyone give any proof that women are just as violent as men.” and “Women might kill from emotion but only men kill for greed and power.”
I give you Anne Bonny and Mary Read, two very violent women pirates who were in it for the power and greed.
As for property, I am a firm believer in property ownership, only if the reason is because property is one of the few things that can be passed on from generation to generation as a gain in value. Money, loses value each year where as property has shown in all parts of the world, (except some parts of Dufar right now) to increase. If you don’t own as G stated, then she is paying the bill to someone else who owns, her money, but I prefer to not pay anyone to pitch my tent. Can I take it with me when I go? Do I really posses it? No, in both instances, but that doesn’t mean I can’t pass it on to future generations so they will have a place to pitch their tent and not be wondering the street. Survival of man has always been about making the survival of the next generation easier. Since we don’t have to worry about survival in the traditional sense as man once experienced it, this is a form that while it won’t ensure the survivability of the species, will at least make it easier.
One of the dreams of many people who come to the United States is that they can live with out a “by your leave” or beholden to others for their lives. Owning property was a means to break these chains that existed for the “common” man.
Starters…
From “G”…”I have yet to see anyone give any proof that women are just as violent as men.” and “Women might kill from emotion but only men kill for greed and power.”
I give you Anne Bonny and Mary Read, two very violent women pirates who were in it for the power and greed.
As for property, I am a firm believer in property ownership, only if the reason is because property is one of the few things that can be passed on from generation to generation as a gain in value. Money, loses value each year where as property has shown in all parts of the world, (except some parts of Dufar right now) to increase. If you don’t own as G stated, then she is paying the bill to someone else who owns, her money, but I prefer to not pay anyone to pitch my tent. Can I take it with me when I go? Do I really posses it? No, in both instances, but that doesn’t mean I can’t pass it on to future generations so they will have a place to pitch their tent and not be wondering the street. Survival of man has always been about making the survival of the next generation easier. Since we don’t have to worry about survival in the traditional sense as man once experienced it, this is a form that while it won’t ensure the survivability of the species, will at least make it easier.
One of the dreams of many people who come to the United States is that they can live with out a “by your leave” or beholden to others for their lives. Owning property was a means to break these chains that existed for the “common” man.
krelican,
You raise the bar quite high when you start accusing posters of “verbal diarrhea” and talking out of their ***. Hmm, do I detect an anal fixation?
Your substantive contributions are:
1. When populations expand beyond aboriginal levels they start to fight for resources.
Good point. Europeans in the 15th century found themselves woefully short on gold, silver and spices, so they conquered new lands to the west in order to secure necessary resources. In addition, the cupboard of new Christians was bare, so they had to convert new believers or slaughter them throughout the New World.
2. Borders and private property are the best facilitators of peace.
Considering that modern history has never known a time without war as a result of border disputes among nations, I’m not sure what evidence you would identify to prove that point.
3. There exists a valid theory termed “Tragedy of the Commons.”
Perhaps you are suggesting the theory be elevated to “laws of physics” status?
Hello….kettle…..this is pot!
krelican,
You raise the bar quite high when you start accusing posters of “verbal diarrhea” and talking out of their ***. Hmm, do I detect an anal fixation?
Your substantive contributions are:
1. When populations expand beyond aboriginal levels they start to fight for resources.
Good point. Europeans in the 15th century found themselves woefully short on gold, silver and spices, so they conquered new lands to the west in order to secure necessary resources. In addition, the cupboard of new Christians was bare, so they had to convert new believers or slaughter them throughout the New World.
2. Borders and private property are the best facilitators of peace.
Considering that modern history has never known a time without war as a result of border disputes among nations, I’m not sure what evidence you would identify to prove that point.
3. There exists a valid theory termed “Tragedy of the Commons.”
Perhaps you are suggesting the theory be elevated to “laws of physics” status?
Hello….kettle…..this is pot!
Krelican,
Whoo, nuthin like being lectured first thing in the morning! Sorry you don’t find hypothetical discussions worth the trouble. As for myself, I feel turning things around to look at them with a different perspective might lend itself to accomplishing the proverbial paradigm shift. Every great change in human thought has begun with discussions like these.
You make a good point about the size of population as it relates to borders, and I concede that knowing our boundaries can make for peaceful relations AS LONG AS WE STAY WITHIN THEM! Borders themselves aren’t the problem. It’s when we cross someone else’s borders (Iraq) or exclude them from crossing ours (immigration) that the trouble begins.
Alpha,
Women pirates! Coooool!
[If you don't own as G stated, then she is paying the bill to someone else who owns, her money, but I prefer to not pay anyone to pitch my tent.]
I was a homeowner for eight years. My experience was one of being tied to that property like a dog on a rope. Always pouring money into repairing, fixing up, never able to just take off for months of travel. When we wanted to sell and get out of SoCal, the market happened to be down so we took a beating. Now that I rent, I’m truly free. If the fridge breaks, it’s not my responsibility. I have no yardwork, never have to fix the roof. I can close the door and leave for as long as I want or move out at any time.
Those who own a home (read; pay mortgage) are at the mercy of the economy and housing market. They may have paid a hundred thousand into their property, but fall on hard times and get it repossessed. Then where are they? No money, no property. Property ownership only works if everything in your life and society is hunky dorey. Otherwise; lookout!
[Since we don't have to worry about survival in the traditional sense as man once experienced it…]
This may soon change. As a result of rising energy prices, the economy could collapse. Many people will lose their property because they’ve lost their jobs and can’t pay their mortgage or their property taxes. Post-oil will be a great equalizer. All wealth will disappear and we’ll all be struggling for survival.
Keep that tent handy.
Krelican,
Whoo, nuthin like being lectured first thing in the morning! Sorry you don’t find hypothetical discussions worth the trouble. As for myself, I feel turning things around to look at them with a different perspective might lend itself to accomplishing the proverbial paradigm shift. Every great change in human thought has begun with discussions like these.
You make a good point about the size of population as it relates to borders, and I concede that knowing our boundaries can make for peaceful relations AS LONG AS WE STAY WITHIN THEM! Borders themselves aren’t the problem. It’s when we cross someone else’s borders (Iraq) or exclude them from crossing ours (immigration) that the trouble begins.
Alpha,
Women pirates! Coooool!
[If you don't own as G stated, then she is paying the bill to someone else who owns, her money, but I prefer to not pay anyone to pitch my tent.]
I was a homeowner for eight years. My experience was one of being tied to that property like a dog on a rope. Always pouring money into repairing, fixing up, never able to just take off for months of travel. When we wanted to sell and get out of SoCal, the market happened to be down so we took a beating. Now that I rent, I’m truly free. If the fridge breaks, it’s not my responsibility. I have no yardwork, never have to fix the roof. I can close the door and leave for as long as I want or move out at any time.
Those who own a home (read; pay mortgage) are at the mercy of the economy and housing market. They may have paid a hundred thousand into their property, but fall on hard times and get it repossessed. Then where are they? No money, no property. Property ownership only works if everything in your life and society is hunky dorey. Otherwise; lookout!
[Since we don't have to worry about survival in the traditional sense as man once experienced it…]
This may soon change. As a result of rising energy prices, the economy could collapse. Many people will lose their property because they’ve lost their jobs and can’t pay their mortgage or their property taxes. Post-oil will be a great equalizer. All wealth will disappear and we’ll all be struggling for survival.
Keep that tent handy.
Point taken…..I suppose my real point was that at the end of the day truth is hard to sort out most of the time and I, personally, don’t think that’s made any easier by “unrealistic idealism.” No one of these comments is made by an expert (assuming we’re all average people, I apologize if I’m wrong) on history or international politics. I don’t think that excludes any one of us from being able to have an opinion BUT I’ve discovered there is a real lack of humility in the blogosphere. No ones an expert on everything but many write as if they are. You’re right, “when populations expand there is more conflict over resources” is just as much a generalization as is “Trouble started when the first person put a fence up,” and the problem with blogging is that sourcing such assertions is rare. Hey, I didn’t reference a source either (I should have mentioned that my stated opinion was shaped by books by Jared Diamond, who one could argue IS an expert). I was attempting to not only be brief but to make a thoughtful statement based on anything loosely associated with fact and not “unrealistic idealism.” Obviously, not being an expert as mentioned above, my view is possibly faulty and maybe because I was accusing the original poster of stating an acknowledgedly faulty statement that does make me the kettle (am I talking in circles?).
I guess my hope was to convey that while it is easy to say that a world without borders would be more peaceful it is not only not easy to prove (again I’ll use “I”: I think it is intellectually dishonest to take complex issues such as Israel and make off-handed conclusions about them as somehow evidence) it isn’t based on anything of substance and maybe if bloggers stuck to what they could really intelligently discuss and the rest of us could read them and be able to learn something we would have more “progressive” discussions.
The “Tragedy of the Commons” comment was merely an attempt TO present an intelligent idea. I’m not sure if it is a theory akin to a scientific theory that can be tested under repeated experiment but there is a reason that it is a continual topic of discussion, just ask the common property of the “world’s” oceans and see if you can find that Utopia. I’d be interested to hear how that goes.
Do I have an anal fixation?…….Maybe….. I’ll just take away from that that I shouldn’t compare people’s thoughts and words to human waste or the butt hole, that certainly doesn’t create an intelligent discussion and I apologize.
Point taken…..I suppose my real point was that at the end of the day truth is hard to sort out most of the time and I, personally, don’t think that’s made any easier by “unrealistic idealism.” No one of these comments is made by an expert (assuming we’re all average people, I apologize if I’m wrong) on history or international politics. I don’t think that excludes any one of us from being able to have an opinion BUT I’ve discovered there is a real lack of humility in the blogosphere. No ones an expert on everything but many write as if they are. You’re right, “when populations expand there is more conflict over resources” is just as much a generalization as is “Trouble started when the first person put a fence up,” and the problem with blogging is that sourcing such assertions is rare. Hey, I didn’t reference a source either (I should have mentioned that my stated opinion was shaped by books by Jared Diamond, who one could argue IS an expert). I was attempting to not only be brief but to make a thoughtful statement based on anything loosely associated with fact and not “unrealistic idealism.” Obviously, not being an expert as mentioned above, my view is possibly faulty and maybe because I was accusing the original poster of stating an acknowledgedly faulty statement that does make me the kettle (am I talking in circles?).
I guess my hope was to convey that while it is easy to say that a world without borders would be more peaceful it is not only not easy to prove (again I’ll use “I”: I think it is intellectually dishonest to take complex issues such as Israel and make off-handed conclusions about them as somehow evidence) it isn’t based on anything of substance and maybe if bloggers stuck to what they could really intelligently discuss and the rest of us could read them and be able to learn something we would have more “progressive” discussions.
The “Tragedy of the Commons” comment was merely an attempt TO present an intelligent idea. I’m not sure if it is a theory akin to a scientific theory that can be tested under repeated experiment but there is a reason that it is a continual topic of discussion, just ask the common property of the “world’s” oceans and see if you can find that Utopia. I’d be interested to hear how that goes.
Do I have an anal fixation?…….Maybe….. I’ll just take away from that that I shouldn’t compare people’s thoughts and words to human waste or the butt hole, that certainly doesn’t create an intelligent discussion and I apologize.
“Considering that modern history has never known a time without war as a result of border disputes among nations, I’m not sure what evidence you would identify to prove that point.”
I would submit communist russia, or china, as evidence. Their lack of private property rights resulted in murder unprecedented in human history. To supplement, I can’t think of one time in human history when co-operative ownership on a large scale produced any meaningful results.
Your defense of renting vs. home ownership only underscores the perspective that it is the governments regulatory structure (i.e insurance regs, zoning etc.l) that acts as your leash.
In a world as violent as ours, clearly defined borders defended by guns is a necessity, whether it exists at the private ownership level or the state level. You may fritter and fret about grabbing a tent. I will grab a shotgun and start hunting year round, and to hell with the limits. Sarcasm aside, our standard of living is as high as any that the world has ever seen. I don’t think we are going to be fighting for survival any time soon.
“Considering that modern history has never known a time without war as a result of border disputes among nations, I’m not sure what evidence you would identify to prove that point.”
I would submit communist russia, or china, as evidence. Their lack of private property rights resulted in murder unprecedented in human history. To supplement, I can’t think of one time in human history when co-operative ownership on a large scale produced any meaningful results.
Your defense of renting vs. home ownership only underscores the perspective that it is the governments regulatory structure (i.e insurance regs, zoning etc.l) that acts as your leash.
In a world as violent as ours, clearly defined borders defended by guns is a necessity, whether it exists at the private ownership level or the state level. You may fritter and fret about grabbing a tent. I will grab a shotgun and start hunting year round, and to hell with the limits. Sarcasm aside, our standard of living is as high as any that the world has ever seen. I don’t think we are going to be fighting for survival any time soon.
Krelican,
Maybe you are confused about what blogging is; pure unadultered non-expert OPINION. Some of us are very educated on the topics we write about, some are new to the subjects. It doesn’t matter, this is a place to discuss ideas and possibilities, NOT to solve all of the world’s problems. Maybe instead of blogging, you should join a think tank, where your opinions have a possibility of being turned into reality.
[I think it is intellectually dishonest to take complex issues such as Israel and make off-handed conclusions about them as somehow evidence]
Oh boy does this accusation have the familiar smack of an offended Jew! Sorry Krel, but I happen to be very knowledgable on the subject of Israel, especially as it relates to policy and politics and world peace. Don’t go there. If you must, then you should visit my post; “Shhhh! Don’t talk about Israel” for some background on my position.
Lucky wrote; [our standard of living is as high as any that the world has ever seen. I don't think we are going to be fighting for survival any time soon.]
Hmmm, maybe you’re not aware of Peak Oil? See my post: The imminent extinction of Hydrocarbon Man (and woman).
Our standard of living is high because our oil is cheap. This, according to the experts (that’s for you Krelican) is going to change VERY soon. When money loses it’s value, so will property. Then those who think they own property will be emptying their shotguns trying to protect it.
But, eventually we’ll run out of bullets…and barbed wire…and humans will return to their natural state; nomadic animals.
Krelican,
Maybe you are confused about what blogging is; pure unadultered non-expert OPINION. Some of us are very educated on the topics we write about, some are new to the subjects. It doesn’t matter, this is a place to discuss ideas and possibilities, NOT to solve all of the world’s problems. Maybe instead of blogging, you should join a think tank, where your opinions have a possibility of being turned into reality.
[I think it is intellectually dishonest to take complex issues such as Israel and make off-handed conclusions about them as somehow evidence]
Oh boy does this accusation have the familiar smack of an offended Jew! Sorry Krel, but I happen to be very knowledgable on the subject of Israel, especially as it relates to policy and politics and world peace. Don’t go there. If you must, then you should visit my post; “Shhhh! Don’t talk about Israel” for some background on my position.
Lucky wrote; [our standard of living is as high as any that the world has ever seen. I don't think we are going to be fighting for survival any time soon.]
Hmmm, maybe you’re not aware of Peak Oil? See my post: The imminent extinction of Hydrocarbon Man (and woman).
Our standard of living is high because our oil is cheap. This, according to the experts (that’s for you Krelican) is going to change VERY soon. When money loses it’s value, so will property. Then those who think they own property will be emptying their shotguns trying to protect it.
But, eventually we’ll run out of bullets…and barbed wire…and humans will return to their natural state; nomadic animals.
[When money loses it’s value, so will property. Then those who think they own property will be emptying their shotguns trying to protect it.]
On that day, explain to us why being a renter will be advantageous.
Cheers,
[When money loses it’s value, so will property. Then those who think they own property will be emptying their shotguns trying to protect it.]
On that day, explain to us why being a renter will be advantageous.
Cheers,
Shotguns??!! I prefer to take um out at around 700 meters….why let them get close.
Like we used to say to the bad guys…”If you run, you only die tired.” : )
Shotguns??!! I prefer to take um out at around 700 meters….why let them get close.
Like we used to say to the bad guys…”If you run, you only die tired.” : )
[On that day, explain to us why being a renter will be advantageous]
Because I have no attachment, financial or emotional, I can just leave. Which I will, to go live communally on public land, in homes we build ourselves just like in the old days.
[On that day, explain to us why being a renter will be advantageous]
Because I have no attachment, financial or emotional, I can just leave. Which I will, to go live communally on public land, in homes we build ourselves just like in the old days.
krelican,
Your second post explains your position much more thoughtfully and articulately–I see your point a little better. I would say we are all experts and neophytes in our own way and yet everyone has the capacity to learn from others. The Con Man might disagree, but credentials do not automatically make the proponent correct on any particular topic.
As an example close to home (sorry to beat this dead horse), Condi Rice was very instrumental to my education as an undergrad, was my senior thesis advisor, and the primary reason I went to grad shool at the University of Denver. She’s an expert on foreign policy, I am strictly an amateur enthusiast. Although I respect her enormously, I believe that those of us that protested the decision to invade Iraq analyzed the situation better than the experts in the Bush administration.
As a result, if someone has an idea, by all means let’s hear it. You wrote before that we should critically analyze our own assumptions that we take for granted–I think that is an interesting point but I don’t exactly know what you mean by that. Perhaps you could expand on it.
Marbles,
The original proposition was that the establishment of borders may be causing some of the problems humanity faces today, including immigration and war. I’m not sure what communist Russia or China has to do with that proposition–I don’t think Reckless is proposing worldwide totalitarian rule. In addition, conjecture that a lack of property rights is the cause of murder unprecedented in human history seems way off base. Victims of the holocaust might have something to say about that.
You also wrote: “[i]n a world as violent as ours, clearly defined borders defended by guns is a necessity….” Reckless’ point may illustrate a potential chicken and egg problem–is the violence the baseline, and the right to acquire and defend private property the solution, or could it be that establishing a “mine, not yours” system begets the violence?
Alpha,
How’s it going? Just a couple quick questions. Do you believe everyone should own property? If not, why should some own property and others not? Also, with respect to property inheritance, why should the next generation start on unequal footing? For instance, let’s assume Reckless’ theoretical kid was born on the same day as Paris Hilton. Is there any logical reason why Paris should start life with millions of dollars worth of property while Reckless’ kid would have none? I know the example sounds silly, but I think there is a conceptual point there. One could argue that we have not progressed too many steps beyond feudalism other than the fact there is an opportunity for the proverbial “American Dream.”
krelican,
Your second post explains your position much more thoughtfully and articulately–I see your point a little better. I would say we are all experts and neophytes in our own way and yet everyone has the capacity to learn from others. The Con Man might disagree, but credentials do not automatically make the proponent correct on any particular topic.
As an example close to home (sorry to beat this dead horse), Condi Rice was very instrumental to my education as an undergrad, was my senior thesis advisor, and the primary reason I went to grad shool at the University of Denver. She’s an expert on foreign policy, I am strictly an amateur enthusiast. Although I respect her enormously, I believe that those of us that protested the decision to invade Iraq analyzed the situation better than the experts in the Bush administration.
As a result, if someone has an idea, by all means let’s hear it. You wrote before that we should critically analyze our own assumptions that we take for granted–I think that is an interesting point but I don’t exactly know what you mean by that. Perhaps you could expand on it.
Marbles,
The original proposition was that the establishment of borders may be causing some of the problems humanity faces today, including immigration and war. I’m not sure what communist Russia or China has to do with that proposition–I don’t think Reckless is proposing worldwide totalitarian rule. In addition, conjecture that a lack of property rights is the cause of murder unprecedented in human history seems way off base. Victims of the holocaust might have something to say about that.
You also wrote: “[i]n a world as violent as ours, clearly defined borders defended by guns is a necessity….” Reckless’ point may illustrate a potential chicken and egg problem–is the violence the baseline, and the right to acquire and defend private property the solution, or could it be that establishing a “mine, not yours” system begets the violence?
Alpha,
How’s it going? Just a couple quick questions. Do you believe everyone should own property? If not, why should some own property and others not? Also, with respect to property inheritance, why should the next generation start on unequal footing? For instance, let’s assume Reckless’ theoretical kid was born on the same day as Paris Hilton. Is there any logical reason why Paris should start life with millions of dollars worth of property while Reckless’ kid would have none? I know the example sounds silly, but I think there is a conceptual point there. One could argue that we have not progressed too many steps beyond feudalism other than the fact there is an opportunity for the proverbial “American Dream.”
“Hmmm, maybe you’re not aware of Peak Oil?”
A similar phenomenon occured in the 50′s, and the 70′s. Truth is, there is enough oil RIGHT HERE IN THE PICEANCE BASIN (shale) to fuel the American economy at present rates for the next 300 + years.
“See my post: The imminent extinction of hydrocarbon man.”
Give me an alternative and I’ll use it.
Our standard of living is high because our oil is cheap. When money loses it’s value, so will property. Then those who think they own property will be emptying their shotguns trying to protect it. But, eventually we’ll run out of bullets…and barbed wire…and humans will return to their natural state; nomadic animals. ”
How do you figure? You can grow food on your property. You can defend yourself effectively from a compound. I would rather have land than cash. The world has not treated nomads kindly over it’s history. Just ask the Jews. . .you are apparently an expert. Or the gypsys, or the American Indians for that matter. Plus, there are plenty of bullets. Finally, the natural state of man is not nomadic. It is our tendency to settle down, whether in the back of a cave or on the 54th story of an apartment building or in a little house on the prairie.
Your position is laughable really and just because you started a couple of blog posts doesn’t make your opinion valid. I know a lot about baseball, but I ain’t considered an expert. Krelcan, anal references aside, gets it, at least she is realistic. You have a pie in the sky idea and I get the sense that you almost hope for the day of reckoning. Thats sad. Perhaps it is because you have no attachments, and wish the same enlightenment for everyone else.
“I don’t think Reckless is proposing worldwide totalitarian rule”
No, but that is really the only way to establish a world without any form of property rights like reckless proposes. And true, the holocaust was a different kind of massacre (racist vs. classist) but the same principles of private property rights applied. Jews were stripped of their private property rights (search seizure, individuality, corporate ownership, etc.) before they were sent to off to die and the Nazis had no respect for borders in the quest to consummate their fantasy for a third reich. We nibble at property rights at our own risk.
Rousseau wasn’t the greatest writer in the 18th century, Jefferson and Madison were. And our standard of living were tied to the latters philosophy, not the formers.
“Hmmm, maybe you’re not aware of Peak Oil?”
A similar phenomenon occured in the 50′s, and the 70′s. Truth is, there is enough oil RIGHT HERE IN THE PICEANCE BASIN (shale) to fuel the American economy at present rates for the next 300 + years.
“See my post: The imminent extinction of hydrocarbon man.”
Give me an alternative and I’ll use it.
Our standard of living is high because our oil is cheap. When money loses it’s value, so will property. Then those who think they own property will be emptying their shotguns trying to protect it. But, eventually we’ll run out of bullets…and barbed wire…and humans will return to their natural state; nomadic animals. ”
How do you figure? You can grow food on your property. You can defend yourself effectively from a compound. I would rather have land than cash. The world has not treated nomads kindly over it’s history. Just ask the Jews. . .you are apparently an expert. Or the gypsys, or the American Indians for that matter. Plus, there are plenty of bullets. Finally, the natural state of man is not nomadic. It is our tendency to settle down, whether in the back of a cave or on the 54th story of an apartment building or in a little house on the prairie.
Your position is laughable really and just because you started a couple of blog posts doesn’t make your opinion valid. I know a lot about baseball, but I ain’t considered an expert. Krelcan, anal references aside, gets it, at least she is realistic. You have a pie in the sky idea and I get the sense that you almost hope for the day of reckoning. Thats sad. Perhaps it is because you have no attachments, and wish the same enlightenment for everyone else.
“I don’t think Reckless is proposing worldwide totalitarian rule”
No, but that is really the only way to establish a world without any form of property rights like reckless proposes. And true, the holocaust was a different kind of massacre (racist vs. classist) but the same principles of private property rights applied. Jews were stripped of their private property rights (search seizure, individuality, corporate ownership, etc.) before they were sent to off to die and the Nazis had no respect for borders in the quest to consummate their fantasy for a third reich. We nibble at property rights at our own risk.
Rousseau wasn’t the greatest writer in the 18th century, Jefferson and Madison were. And our standard of living were tied to the latters philosophy, not the formers.
Marbles, I’m sensing some hostility from you. What’s up?
Shale requires more energy to extract than it produces. My husband recently worked at a nearby site where Shell is conducting an experimental shale extraction project. He said when he saw that, he realized the end of cheap oil was near. They wouldn’t go to all of that expense and trouble to get shale if oil was still abundant.
["See my post: The imminent extinction of hydrocarbon man." Give me an alternative and I'll use it.]
http://www.kunstler.com/
If you haven’t read The Long Emergency, you should. Unless you prefer to remain blissfully unaware of civilization’s impending demise.
[Finally, the natural state of man is not nomadic. It is our tendency to settle down, whether in the back of a cave or on the 54th story of an apartment building or in a little house on the prairie.]
I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but cavemen and most ancient people were nomadic for the simple reason that when the seasons change and the animals migrate we need to follow the food source. Generally native people had two or three areas they rotated in and out of. Yes, we can settle down, farm, and defend our “property” which is what I intend to do, but I also leave open the possibility of migrating to better climates/water sources if the environment here changes significantly.
And your premise that people aren’t migratory falls completely apart when you consider the patterns evident in just the last few hundred years. I’m pretty sure this continent wasn’t full of Europeans prior to that.
[Your position is laughable really and just because you started a couple of blog posts doesn't make your opinion valid.]
Never said it did. Don’t get your panties in a bunch, I’m just throwing stuff out there for the discussion. If you don’t like it, you’re free not to participate.
[I get the sense that you almost hope for the day of reckoning.]
Talk about laughable! Who in their right mind would wish for the end of civilization? I’m just practical. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Marbles, I’m sensing some hostility from you. What’s up?
Shale requires more energy to extract than it produces. My husband recently worked at a nearby site where Shell is conducting an experimental shale extraction project. He said when he saw that, he realized the end of cheap oil was near. They wouldn’t go to all of that expense and trouble to get shale if oil was still abundant.
["See my post: The imminent extinction of hydrocarbon man." Give me an alternative and I'll use it.]
http://www.kunstler.com/
If you haven’t read The Long Emergency, you should. Unless you prefer to remain blissfully unaware of civilization’s impending demise.
[Finally, the natural state of man is not nomadic. It is our tendency to settle down, whether in the back of a cave or on the 54th story of an apartment building or in a little house on the prairie.]
I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but cavemen and most ancient people were nomadic for the simple reason that when the seasons change and the animals migrate we need to follow the food source. Generally native people had two or three areas they rotated in and out of. Yes, we can settle down, farm, and defend our “property” which is what I intend to do, but I also leave open the possibility of migrating to better climates/water sources if the environment here changes significantly.
And your premise that people aren’t migratory falls completely apart when you consider the patterns evident in just the last few hundred years. I’m pretty sure this continent wasn’t full of Europeans prior to that.
[Your position is laughable really and just because you started a couple of blog posts doesn't make your opinion valid.]
Never said it did. Don’t get your panties in a bunch, I’m just throwing stuff out there for the discussion. If you don’t like it, you’re free not to participate.
[I get the sense that you almost hope for the day of reckoning.]
Talk about laughable! Who in their right mind would wish for the end of civilization? I’m just practical. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
[I will... go live communally on public land, in homes we build ourselves just like in the old days.]
And no doubt you’ll make a go of it.
With all the homes that exist, why wouldn’t you just pick an empty one? After all, didn’t you opine that most folks would migrate to warmer climes?
Suppose the human race survives whatever apocalypse is in store for civilization, and people return to the valley and begin moving in on your crops, or even your shelter.
What do you do then?
Cheers,
Cheers,
[I will... go live communally on public land, in homes we build ourselves just like in the old days.]
And no doubt you’ll make a go of it.
With all the homes that exist, why wouldn’t you just pick an empty one? After all, didn’t you opine that most folks would migrate to warmer climes?
Suppose the human race survives whatever apocalypse is in store for civilization, and people return to the valley and begin moving in on your crops, or even your shelter.
What do you do then?
Cheers,
Cheers,
Wow Mitch, you get it. Not many people have the ability to realize the implications.
[With all the homes that exist, why wouldn't you just pick an empty one? After all, didn't you opine that most folks would migrate to warmer climes?]
When civilization breaks down, chaos and rioting will erupt in anyplace where humans outnumber the capacity to support them, including here. Though many will leave, there will still be those who stay and try to make a go of it. Some will try to survive by preying on others. Rather than getting caught up in the fray, I and my family will move in to the wilderness, where we’ll remain at least until things calm down, maybe in my case, for the rest of my life.
If we return to the Valley floor, we could move into an existing home if we could find one that had the right amenities (indoor woodburning fireplace, land for crops and livestock, nearby access to water). I think I’d rather just start over, than be faced with the ghosts of our failed civilization. The broken infrastructure, crumbling streets infested with weeds and empty homes will be a sad reminder of our glory days. I would like to see my great-grandchildren start fresh in humanity’s new (old) path, rather than scrabbling around among the bones of the dead past.
[Suppose the human race survives whatever apocalypse is in store for civilization, and people return to the valley and begin moving in on your crops, or even your shelter.]
My hope is that someday, whoever is left will learn to form co-operative communities, sharing resources and skills, and live in peace. But humans preying on each other will always be a problem, it’s part of our animal nature. We’ll deal with it just like the ancients did, with spears.
Believe me, I hope I never have to use all of the skills and preparations I’ve developed, but just in case…
Wow Mitch, you get it. Not many people have the ability to realize the implications.
[With all the homes that exist, why wouldn't you just pick an empty one? After all, didn't you opine that most folks would migrate to warmer climes?]
When civilization breaks down, chaos and rioting will erupt in anyplace where humans outnumber the capacity to support them, including here. Though many will leave, there will still be those who stay and try to make a go of it. Some will try to survive by preying on others. Rather than getting caught up in the fray, I and my family will move in to the wilderness, where we’ll remain at least until things calm down, maybe in my case, for the rest of my life.
If we return to the Valley floor, we could move into an existing home if we could find one that had the right amenities (indoor woodburning fireplace, land for crops and livestock, nearby access to water). I think I’d rather just start over, than be faced with the ghosts of our failed civilization. The broken infrastructure, crumbling streets infested with weeds and empty homes will be a sad reminder of our glory days. I would like to see my great-grandchildren start fresh in humanity’s new (old) path, rather than scrabbling around among the bones of the dead past.
[Suppose the human race survives whatever apocalypse is in store for civilization, and people return to the valley and begin moving in on your crops, or even your shelter.]
My hope is that someday, whoever is left will learn to form co-operative communities, sharing resources and skills, and live in peace. But humans preying on each other will always be a problem, it’s part of our animal nature. We’ll deal with it just like the ancients did, with spears.
Believe me, I hope I never have to use all of the skills and preparations I’ve developed, but just in case…
[I hope I never have to use all of the skills and preparations I’ve developed, but just in case…]
And no doubt your skills and preparations are many. I suppose this makes you a survivalist—not in the northern Idaho freemen sense, but in the Taoist sense. Is that fair?
You know, the whole non-perishable food, water-purification equipment, clothing, seed, agricultural equipment, and weapons & ammunition for purely defensive purposes thing. Shelter. Heat. Water. And a little protein now and then. Git’er done.
Have you really thought this all the way through? Do you really yearn for the day your survival depends on you? Nature here can be a real SOB. Especially on January nights.
While you’re holing-up on former National Forest land, how will you hide the smoke of your fire?
Cheers,
[I hope I never have to use all of the skills and preparations I’ve developed, but just in case…]
And no doubt your skills and preparations are many. I suppose this makes you a survivalist—not in the northern Idaho freemen sense, but in the Taoist sense. Is that fair?
You know, the whole non-perishable food, water-purification equipment, clothing, seed, agricultural equipment, and weapons & ammunition for purely defensive purposes thing. Shelter. Heat. Water. And a little protein now and then. Git’er done.
Have you really thought this all the way through? Do you really yearn for the day your survival depends on you? Nature here can be a real SOB. Especially on January nights.
While you’re holing-up on former National Forest land, how will you hide the smoke of your fire?
Cheers,
[Do you really yearn for the day your survival depends on you?]
Absolutely not. I dread it. I would prefer to go on living my cushy life, eating dark chocolate, drinking wine, taking long hot bubble baths, watching HBO. I would prefer my granddaughter grow up listening to iTunes, shopping at the mall, going to college to study for the career of her choice. If I really “yearned” for a survivalist lifestyle, I’d just go to somewhere remote in the Canadian Rockies and do it now.
Have I thought this through? Only for the last twenty years. Am I prepared? No. I’ll probably never be fully prepared. I’m sure there are things I haven’t thought of, and there are certainly many skills I have a rudimentary knowledge of but am not proficient in.
[While you’re holing-up on former National Forest land, how will you hide the smoke of your fire?]
I’m counting on there being no governmental structure in place to catch me. If society’s stragglers wander out into the wilderness and spot my fire, I’ll either invite them in or shoot them, depending on their intention and attitude.
Mitch, I’ve never really discussed this out loud with anyone. Now here I am explaining in depth what may look like insanity to most. It even looks crazy to me when I see it on paper. But knowing what I know about oil depletion and overpopulation and human nature, I still prefer to err on the side of caution.
My main motivation as I stated on my other post, is preserving my granddaughter’s life. It’s a deep maternal instinct that I can’t fight. I may never see the day when society collapses, but barring any significant changes in our energy supply, she certainly will. My knowledge will pass to her so that she can use it if she ever needs it.
[Do you really yearn for the day your survival depends on you?]
Absolutely not. I dread it. I would prefer to go on living my cushy life, eating dark chocolate, drinking wine, taking long hot bubble baths, watching HBO. I would prefer my granddaughter grow up listening to iTunes, shopping at the mall, going to college to study for the career of her choice. If I really “yearned” for a survivalist lifestyle, I’d just go to somewhere remote in the Canadian Rockies and do it now.
Have I thought this through? Only for the last twenty years. Am I prepared? No. I’ll probably never be fully prepared. I’m sure there are things I haven’t thought of, and there are certainly many skills I have a rudimentary knowledge of but am not proficient in.
[While you’re holing-up on former National Forest land, how will you hide the smoke of your fire?]
I’m counting on there being no governmental structure in place to catch me. If society’s stragglers wander out into the wilderness and spot my fire, I’ll either invite them in or shoot them, depending on their intention and attitude.
Mitch, I’ve never really discussed this out loud with anyone. Now here I am explaining in depth what may look like insanity to most. It even looks crazy to me when I see it on paper. But knowing what I know about oil depletion and overpopulation and human nature, I still prefer to err on the side of caution.
My main motivation as I stated on my other post, is preserving my granddaughter’s life. It’s a deep maternal instinct that I can’t fight. I may never see the day when society collapses, but barring any significant changes in our energy supply, she certainly will. My knowledge will pass to her so that she can use it if she ever needs it.
Reckless,
It is not my intent to question your motives.
In fact, let me take this oppurtunity to say I hope you had a wonderful mother’s day.
Cheers,
Reckless,
It is not my intent to question your motives.
In fact, let me take this oppurtunity to say I hope you had a wonderful mother’s day.
Cheers,
Thanks, it was lovely.
If I’m sounding a bit defensive it’s simply because discussing this issue feels strange, after remaining silent on it for so long. None of my closest friends or family have any idea of my survivalist leanings. So those here on Aspen Post are privy to something I’ve kept to myself for twenty years.
I guess that’s a coup for Conniff.
Thanks, it was lovely.
If I’m sounding a bit defensive it’s simply because discussing this issue feels strange, after remaining silent on it for so long. None of my closest friends or family have any idea of my survivalist leanings. So those here on Aspen Post are privy to something I’ve kept to myself for twenty years.
I guess that’s a coup for Conniff.
Land ownership, water rights, property rights, exclusionary ownership of the nonreplaceable, that which cannot be manufactured. Really, when I read a discussion describing Aristotle’s desciption of what is wrong with communism, amusement follows. Putting aside the believers in the Adam and Eve explanation for humanity’s existence, hominids and the closely related pithecines, as far as have been determined are territorial and have been for probably the last 8-12 million years. Gorrillas, Chimpanzees are, and Bonobos probably are too, certainly modern Homo is.
But humanity has been migratory for all of known history, shifting with the winds of changing climate, animal movement, and food resource changes. Because of the low numbers of people at any one time encounters with different tribes, clans and peoples was probably infrequent. Territory, was wherever you and your tribe was hunting and subsistence grazing, in the abscence of other predators human or not, it was controlled — by default, not necessarilly by design. If the hunting and subsistence grazing were good, settling could and almost certainly did occur, semipermanently, seasonally and even multigenerationally.
The private property supporters want to present a vision of law and order regarding ownership of land as though there was never anything different. Those with a romantised view of ancient ancestors see an idyllic group sharing all there is. The truth is much closer to the latter than to the former though. The “rich shall come first” according to Aristotle and conveniently omitted by A6, tells you where Aristotle was coming from, hoarding made possible by agriculture, greed fueled by hoarding, resentment and envy as reactions to the former.
Fundamentally, might makes right, and that right is buttressed by law, written by those who had secured rights to be willed to progeny, who may not have the abilities of those who secured the rights, hence the “need” for law based on “history” as written by those securing the “rights”.
Ghengis Khan had the greatest organised meritocracy within males. Those countries, Caliphates and empires with laws enabling the rich (Islamic, Confucian, Christian or whatever they were) whom Aristotle adored so much were crushed by this meritocracy. The United States is in no danger of becoming a meritocracy. Any such meritocracy would have no trouble knocking our country off the pedestal of cultural hubris and temporary economic supremacy.
Laws protect superficial rights of the poor, the conquered and the down trodden. Mostly, laws protect wealth rights from those who may want to get some getback.
There was a time when human life was the ultimately valuable thing, a person who could hunt, pick fruits, dig for tubers, insects and various larvae and in the case of a female, bear a child to continue the community who would then take care of the old so their wisdom would not be lost. America is in no danger of getting civic responsibility from the wealthy in this country, though there are specific exceptions which do give the barest sliver of hope.
Incidentally, higher quality of life Norway does not have the trespassing laws we have. You can leave your footprints as long as damage to crops, buildings and other items, does not happen, that includes going into the buildings.
The last time communism existed on earth was in pre-agricultural migratory societies. It wasn’t called “communism” it was called survival. Loner survival people are American myths. There is no such thing as a self made millionaire or anything. We have all been dependants. Somebody wiped your butt, hopefully breast fed you or you got the formula, you had teachers, ladders dropped down for you to climb, bankers that made loans — some sort of inheritance even if it is intangible. I know many edible plants and can eat grubs, make a fire, snow shelter find and concentrate water and so forth, but I inherited the mental tools to figure out how to do those things.
Claims of self made whatever are lies, and acceptance of those lies is for the ignoranti, of those law abiding nations wherever they are to found. Even without Communism, we still have the dependable lumpen proletarians to keep the darkness of man dim, despite periods of enlightenment.
Land ownership, water rights, property rights, exclusionary ownership of the nonreplaceable, that which cannot be manufactured. Really, when I read a discussion describing Aristotle’s desciption of what is wrong with communism, amusement follows. Putting aside the believers in the Adam and Eve explanation for humanity’s existence, hominids and the closely related pithecines, as far as have been determined are territorial and have been for probably the last 8-12 million years. Gorrillas, Chimpanzees are, and Bonobos probably are too, certainly modern Homo is.
But humanity has been migratory for all of known history, shifting with the winds of changing climate, animal movement, and food resource changes. Because of the low numbers of people at any one time encounters with different tribes, clans and peoples was probably infrequent. Territory, was wherever you and your tribe was hunting and subsistence grazing, in the abscence of other predators human or not, it was controlled — by default, not necessarilly by design. If the hunting and subsistence grazing were good, settling could and almost certainly did occur, semipermanently, seasonally and even multigenerationally.
The private property supporters want to present a vision of law and order regarding ownership of land as though there was never anything different. Those with a romantised view of ancient ancestors see an idyllic group sharing all there is. The truth is much closer to the latter than to the former though. The “rich shall come first” according to Aristotle and conveniently omitted by A6, tells you where Aristotle was coming from, hoarding made possible by agriculture, greed fueled by hoarding, resentment and envy as reactions to the former.
Fundamentally, might makes right, and that right is buttressed by law, written by those who had secured rights to be willed to progeny, who may not have the abilities of those who secured the rights, hence the “need” for law based on “history” as written by those securing the “rights”.
Ghengis Khan had the greatest organised meritocracy within males. Those countries, Caliphates and empires with laws enabling the rich (Islamic, Confucian, Christian or whatever they were) whom Aristotle adored so much were crushed by this meritocracy. The United States is in no danger of becoming a meritocracy. Any such meritocracy would have no trouble knocking our country off the pedestal of cultural hubris and temporary economic supremacy.
Laws protect superficial rights of the poor, the conquered and the down trodden. Mostly, laws protect wealth rights from those who may want to get some getback.
There was a time when human life was the ultimately valuable thing, a person who could hunt, pick fruits, dig for tubers, insects and various larvae and in the case of a female, bear a child to continue the community who would then take care of the old so their wisdom would not be lost. America is in no danger of getting civic responsibility from the wealthy in this country, though there are specific exceptions which do give the barest sliver of hope.
Incidentally, higher quality of life Norway does not have the trespassing laws we have. You can leave your footprints as long as damage to crops, buildings and other items, does not happen, that includes going into the buildings.
The last time communism existed on earth was in pre-agricultural migratory societies. It wasn’t called “communism” it was called survival. Loner survival people are American myths. There is no such thing as a self made millionaire or anything. We have all been dependants. Somebody wiped your butt, hopefully breast fed you or you got the formula, you had teachers, ladders dropped down for you to climb, bankers that made loans — some sort of inheritance even if it is intangible. I know many edible plants and can eat grubs, make a fire, snow shelter find and concentrate water and so forth, but I inherited the mental tools to figure out how to do those things.
Claims of self made whatever are lies, and acceptance of those lies is for the ignoranti, of those law abiding nations wherever they are to found. Even without Communism, we still have the dependable lumpen proletarians to keep the darkness of man dim, despite periods of enlightenment.
I like to read your prose, Ed, but many is the time I come away wondering whether I’ve just read something by penned by Ferdinand Tertan.
Cheers,
I like to read your prose, Ed, but many is the time I come away wondering whether I’ve just read something by penned by Ferdinand Tertan.
Cheers,
I know what you mean Mitch. I love Troy’s writing for its tendency toward intellectual-bordering-on-insanity.
I was fascinated by the info on Norway’s lack of trespassing laws. That’s something I could really get behind. I’m often frustrated by the constant barriers to wandering the land posed by barbed wire and threatening signs. Hard to believe that up until the invention of barbed wire (devil’s rope) in 1868, we and our livestock as well as native wildlife could travel the continent freely. Fences, damn fences!
A thought on the organization of present day human society; one word – mobility. It’s ALL about mobility…of person, product, and information. Without it, we are stagnant and limited. This is why oil depletion is such a huge problem. Without oil, no mobility, without mobility, no modern society. Pretty simple really.
I know what you mean Mitch. I love Troy’s writing for its tendency toward intellectual-bordering-on-insanity.
I was fascinated by the info on Norway’s lack of trespassing laws. That’s something I could really get behind. I’m often frustrated by the constant barriers to wandering the land posed by barbed wire and threatening signs. Hard to believe that up until the invention of barbed wire (devil’s rope) in 1868, we and our livestock as well as native wildlife could travel the continent freely. Fences, damn fences!
A thought on the organization of present day human society; one word – mobility. It’s ALL about mobility…of person, product, and information. Without it, we are stagnant and limited. This is why oil depletion is such a huge problem. Without oil, no mobility, without mobility, no modern society. Pretty simple really.
I was not aware of this Norwegian trespassing law, either. I have a friend who moved there to live with his father and half-brothers after high school. I should look him up and ask him about this.
I used to fly fish, a lot. Many times I have come upon signs and other postings that forced me to step out of the water and hike back to the road. And, it’s only getting worse. I foresee a day when public access to the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan will be so limited that the angling will become a past-time similar to golf—you’ll have to hire a guide to gain access to the river…
Speaking of fly fishing, I heard Sam Caudill died over the weekend. I first met him back in the 60s… A few years ago, Sam joined my dad and me for lunch. He heard I’d been guiding on the Frying Pan and brought me a H. & L. Variant tied by Mr. Coffman, a school teacher who after retiring decades ago tied and sold flies from his place on the lower Frying Pan… I still have that fly—in fact, I’ve never fished it.
Delicious reveries… but back to the subject.
Mobility does define modern society, which isn’t all bad. Mobility makes it possible for an English major to visit the home of John Keats, take a walk in Wordsworth’s Lake District, or see MacBeth in Stratford upon Avon.
Do you really think that if the oil dried up tomorrow, we’d not find other ways to travel?
And what about the internet? Isn’t the internet a form of mobility? The extent to which it is dependent on fossil fuel can’t be too great… I’m pretty sure that’s not how Al Gore designed it.
Cheers,
I was not aware of this Norwegian trespassing law, either. I have a friend who moved there to live with his father and half-brothers after high school. I should look him up and ask him about this.
I used to fly fish, a lot. Many times I have come upon signs and other postings that forced me to step out of the water and hike back to the road. And, it’s only getting worse. I foresee a day when public access to the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan will be so limited that the angling will become a past-time similar to golf—you’ll have to hire a guide to gain access to the river…
Speaking of fly fishing, I heard Sam Caudill died over the weekend. I first met him back in the 60s… A few years ago, Sam joined my dad and me for lunch. He heard I’d been guiding on the Frying Pan and brought me a H. & L. Variant tied by Mr. Coffman, a school teacher who after retiring decades ago tied and sold flies from his place on the lower Frying Pan… I still have that fly—in fact, I’ve never fished it.
Delicious reveries… but back to the subject.
Mobility does define modern society, which isn’t all bad. Mobility makes it possible for an English major to visit the home of John Keats, take a walk in Wordsworth’s Lake District, or see MacBeth in Stratford upon Avon.
Do you really think that if the oil dried up tomorrow, we’d not find other ways to travel?
And what about the internet? Isn’t the internet a form of mobility? The extent to which it is dependent on fossil fuel can’t be too great… I’m pretty sure that’s not how Al Gore designed it.
Cheers,
[Do you really think that if the oil dried up tomorrow, we’d not find other ways to travel?]
You mean like covered wagons? I guess I should’ve qualified it; our society is possible due to SPEEDY mobility. Have you heard the term; “three thousand mile salad?” You buy a salad at a restaurant, or even make one from City Market produce, and those ingredients have traveled from afar. They’re still somewhat fresh because of SPEEDY mobility.
I guess when the oil runs out, we could go back to coal powered train and ship transport. I still think this will put a big crimp in our lifestyle, and the expense of bananas and sugar and coffee will be astronomical. This is where localization comes in. No we can’t grow coffee or tropical fruit here in the valley. We’ll just have to learn to eat what grows here and like it.
[And what about the internet? Isn’t the internet a form of mobility? The extent to which it is dependent on fossil fuel can’t be too great…]
Mobility of information, yes. Doesn’t it depend on electricity, which depends on fossil fuel? Unless we build a whole lotta solar and wind energy centers in the next few years, information mobility will be severely curtailed.
There’s a phenomenon that illustrates our fate which I call “the dimming of planet earth” that I predict will happen in the next twenty years or less. You’ve seen those space photos of earth at night with all of the glittering lights. As petroleum supplies dwindle and become too expensive for the average Joe, little by little, those lights will go out until eventually the earth will be a dark planet, again.
On the plus side, keep those wire cutters handy. As civilization dies out, those of us who are left can just cut down all of the fences and be free!
[Do you really think that if the oil dried up tomorrow, we’d not find other ways to travel?]
You mean like covered wagons? I guess I should’ve qualified it; our society is possible due to SPEEDY mobility. Have you heard the term; “three thousand mile salad?” You buy a salad at a restaurant, or even make one from City Market produce, and those ingredients have traveled from afar. They’re still somewhat fresh because of SPEEDY mobility.
I guess when the oil runs out, we could go back to coal powered train and ship transport. I still think this will put a big crimp in our lifestyle, and the expense of bananas and sugar and coffee will be astronomical. This is where localization comes in. No we can’t grow coffee or tropical fruit here in the valley. We’ll just have to learn to eat what grows here and like it.
[And what about the internet? Isn’t the internet a form of mobility? The extent to which it is dependent on fossil fuel can’t be too great…]
Mobility of information, yes. Doesn’t it depend on electricity, which depends on fossil fuel? Unless we build a whole lotta solar and wind energy centers in the next few years, information mobility will be severely curtailed.
There’s a phenomenon that illustrates our fate which I call “the dimming of planet earth” that I predict will happen in the next twenty years or less. You’ve seen those space photos of earth at night with all of the glittering lights. As petroleum supplies dwindle and become too expensive for the average Joe, little by little, those lights will go out until eventually the earth will be a dark planet, again.
On the plus side, keep those wire cutters handy. As civilization dies out, those of us who are left can just cut down all of the fences and be free!
Today we rely on coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, and petroleum power to generate electricity. A significantly lesser amount of electricity comes from solar energy, tidal harnesses, wind farms, and geothermal sources.
I couldn’t break these sources down into any meaningful percentages, but I after googling around for info, I found that the most efficient electrical plant uses a combination of natural gas and steam to generate electricity.
Compared to our dependence on fossil fuels for mobility, our dependence on electricity would be far easier to adapt to a fossil fuel-less world. The day electricity must be generated by non fossil fuel sources is the day you will see a gaggle of wind turbines off the Nantucket coast.
[As civilization dies out, those of us who are left can just cut down all of the fences and be free!]
Are you suggesting that the grass is greener, and the angling better, on the other side?
Cheers,
Today we rely on coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, and petroleum power to generate electricity. A significantly lesser amount of electricity comes from solar energy, tidal harnesses, wind farms, and geothermal sources.
I couldn’t break these sources down into any meaningful percentages, but I after googling around for info, I found that the most efficient electrical plant uses a combination of natural gas and steam to generate electricity.
Compared to our dependence on fossil fuels for mobility, our dependence on electricity would be far easier to adapt to a fossil fuel-less world. The day electricity must be generated by non fossil fuel sources is the day you will see a gaggle of wind turbines off the Nantucket coast.
[As civilization dies out, those of us who are left can just cut down all of the fences and be free!]
Are you suggesting that the grass is greener, and the angling better, on the other side?
Cheers,
[You’ve seen those space photos of earth at night with all of the glittering lights. As petroleum supplies dwindle and become too expensive for the average Joe, little by little, those lights will go out until eventually the earth will be a dark planet, again.]
You mean like North Korea is today?
Cheers,
[You’ve seen those space photos of earth at night with all of the glittering lights. As petroleum supplies dwindle and become too expensive for the average Joe, little by little, those lights will go out until eventually the earth will be a dark planet, again.]
You mean like North Korea is today?
Cheers,
Yup, you get the picture.
Yup, you get the picture.
Reckless and Mitch,
That’s funny you both commented on Ed’s post the way you did. When I read it, my first reaction was that I can’t even begin to comprehend the breadth of his referential knowledge and introspection. Ed, you are equal parts Bill Moyers, Terry Gilliam, and Emzy Veazy III. I don’t know whether I should commit to you, or have you committed.
In all seriousness, Ed, you are an intellectual heavyweight and I very much enjoy your contributions–keep it up!
I would imagine that if this whole Peak Oil thing plays out as projected by its proponents, it would be more akin to the Great Depression, Part II, with a long period of despair and incredulity that our seemingly impervious semi-controlled market economy managed to fail catastrophically again. Similar to the false sense of security that most have in the “Golden Triangle” (what the???) that we are better equipped to stave off energy boom-bust cycles than we were in the mid-80′s.
I can imagine a good 10-15 years of general flailing and quasi-subsistence living while the conversion to renewable energy sources slowly matriculates. It is too bad that proactivity is not part of human nature–I have no doubt that we will witness great accomplishments once the need is dire. Until then, the collective human inability to remove cranium from posterior and address the limits of a petroleum-based economy will be considered remarkable from an historical perspective.
Reckless and Mitch,
That’s funny you both commented on Ed’s post the way you did. When I read it, my first reaction was that I can’t even begin to comprehend the breadth of his referential knowledge and introspection. Ed, you are equal parts Bill Moyers, Terry Gilliam, and Emzy Veazy III. I don’t know whether I should commit to you, or have you committed.
In all seriousness, Ed, you are an intellectual heavyweight and I very much enjoy your contributions–keep it up!
I would imagine that if this whole Peak Oil thing plays out as projected by its proponents, it would be more akin to the Great Depression, Part II, with a long period of despair and incredulity that our seemingly impervious semi-controlled market economy managed to fail catastrophically again. Similar to the false sense of security that most have in the “Golden Triangle” (what the???) that we are better equipped to stave off energy boom-bust cycles than we were in the mid-80′s.
I can imagine a good 10-15 years of general flailing and quasi-subsistence living while the conversion to renewable energy sources slowly matriculates. It is too bad that proactivity is not part of human nature–I have no doubt that we will witness great accomplishments once the need is dire. Until then, the collective human inability to remove cranium from posterior and address the limits of a petroleum-based economy will be considered remarkable from an historical perspective.
I like to think that the greatest thinkers of all time (everyone has their favorites), were in fact, almost exclusively proactive. In some ways, I see the corrosion of America’s place in the halcyon of great civilisations, as a descent from answering ‘how can we make tomorrow and the rest of the future better than today’? to asking, ‘how can I cheat, chisel, whine and get something for nothing or little accountability?’ Slackers, have always been amongst us human beings. In the past, those slackers, if they were just a little to shiftless, would be cast out of community, out side the walls of protection; or perhaps, if aristocratic or in a leadership position, revolted against and consumed a million years ago, quartered thousands of years ago, guillotined a couple of hundred years ago and now simply get a bad opinion poll. We have dumbed down what we expect from leaders and citizens and the qualifications for both. How do we call anything government when we are devoid of meaningful expectations from those spending tax dollars on the singularly crappy results some dare to call ‘work.’
If this country wants to lead the world out of a very serious energy dilemna; petro reserves on tap and global warming; it can be done and avoid the j curve with apocolyptic horror to reduce human population in a range of 100,000,000 to a billion.
The first thing is to cast aside the rosy forecasts of the fossil fuel stooges and US Government. They hope the dollars you pay them will be worth something. Land if excessivley claimed by supportive law, will be seized de facto by those whose survival will depend on getting some of the resources that land may provide. Prepare for something close to the worst case scenario. Accept that there are going to be at least 1-2billion extra deaths from humans staggering about unable to figure out what to do with nation state borders when they will need water.
Potable water will be much more important than oil in fifty years. Water may run freely until those with water rights take it to waste on lawns and the like. At some point in time, shelter will mean something very different from the Mc Mansions being purveyed and developed in this valley. Transporting water is not cheap. Cities and civilisations have been abandoned and extinguished due to climactic changes. If the wealthy land owners persist and triumph, they will still have to work when the poor have met their fate.
Humans have become the virulent pest of the biosphere. Lets reverse this course of conspicuos come stupid consumption, think globally, work and eat locally, and gravitate to a personal spirituality that is responsible and proactive.
I like to think that the greatest thinkers of all time (everyone has their favorites), were in fact, almost exclusively proactive. In some ways, I see the corrosion of America’s place in the halcyon of great civilisations, as a descent from answering ‘how can we make tomorrow and the rest of the future better than today’? to asking, ‘how can I cheat, chisel, whine and get something for nothing or little accountability?’ Slackers, have always been amongst us human beings. In the past, those slackers, if they were just a little to shiftless, would be cast out of community, out side the walls of protection; or perhaps, if aristocratic or in a leadership position, revolted against and consumed a million years ago, quartered thousands of years ago, guillotined a couple of hundred years ago and now simply get a bad opinion poll. We have dumbed down what we expect from leaders and citizens and the qualifications for both. How do we call anything government when we are devoid of meaningful expectations from those spending tax dollars on the singularly crappy results some dare to call ‘work.’
If this country wants to lead the world out of a very serious energy dilemna; petro reserves on tap and global warming; it can be done and avoid the j curve with apocolyptic horror to reduce human population in a range of 100,000,000 to a billion.
The first thing is to cast aside the rosy forecasts of the fossil fuel stooges and US Government. They hope the dollars you pay them will be worth something. Land if excessivley claimed by supportive law, will be seized de facto by those whose survival will depend on getting some of the resources that land may provide. Prepare for something close to the worst case scenario. Accept that there are going to be at least 1-2billion extra deaths from humans staggering about unable to figure out what to do with nation state borders when they will need water.
Potable water will be much more important than oil in fifty years. Water may run freely until those with water rights take it to waste on lawns and the like. At some point in time, shelter will mean something very different from the Mc Mansions being purveyed and developed in this valley. Transporting water is not cheap. Cities and civilisations have been abandoned and extinguished due to climactic changes. If the wealthy land owners persist and triumph, they will still have to work when the poor have met their fate.
Humans have become the virulent pest of the biosphere. Lets reverse this course of conspicuos come stupid consumption, think globally, work and eat locally, and gravitate to a personal spirituality that is responsible and proactive.
AMEN brother!
AMEN brother!
[Potable water will be much more important than oil in fifty years. Water may run freely until those with water rights take it to waste on lawns and the like.]
If by some remote chance the dire predictions put forth in this thread never come to pass, life on the banks of the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan will almost surely change.
Water flows uphill towards money.
Take the Fry-Ark diversion project on the headwaters of the Frying Pan. This project diverts water from the headwaters of the Frying Pan, through diversion tunnels, and into the Arkansas River.
Ruedi Reservoir is a “compensatory” reservoir, a stock pile of water that ensures the fulfillment of downstream water rights. The water in Ruedi makes it possible for the diversion tunnels to do their thing—pump more water toward the Mississippi.
Why is this a “good” thing? It allows Denver to draw more water out of the North and South Platte Rivers without drying up the Arkansas and compromising senior water rights on the eastern slope of Colorado.
Meanwhile, California is buying up west slope water rights.
Which will last longer? Ruedi or the diversion tunnels?
I remember a bumper sticker, a cowboy pissing on a mountain top. The caption? “Divert this Denver.”
Cheers,
[Potable water will be much more important than oil in fifty years. Water may run freely until those with water rights take it to waste on lawns and the like.]
If by some remote chance the dire predictions put forth in this thread never come to pass, life on the banks of the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan will almost surely change.
Water flows uphill towards money.
Take the Fry-Ark diversion project on the headwaters of the Frying Pan. This project diverts water from the headwaters of the Frying Pan, through diversion tunnels, and into the Arkansas River.
Ruedi Reservoir is a “compensatory” reservoir, a stock pile of water that ensures the fulfillment of downstream water rights. The water in Ruedi makes it possible for the diversion tunnels to do their thing—pump more water toward the Mississippi.
Why is this a “good” thing? It allows Denver to draw more water out of the North and South Platte Rivers without drying up the Arkansas and compromising senior water rights on the eastern slope of Colorado.
Meanwhile, California is buying up west slope water rights.
Which will last longer? Ruedi or the diversion tunnels?
I remember a bumper sticker, a cowboy pissing on a mountain top. The caption? “Divert this Denver.”
Cheers,
Water is most assuredly an issue for the future regardless of what it holds. This is another example of “property” rights that just blows my mind. Owning land is one thing, but owning water?! First thing we ought to do when the oil runs out and we’re left to fend for ourselves up here is blow up those damn diversion tunnels.
It’s not just the water, but what the water provides; home for fish, that is at stake. Fish will be one of our main food sources in the event of a crisis. This seems like something we in the Valley should be protecting. Maybe a call to the RF Conservancy is in order.
I’ve spent some time in Havasu Arizona where the town is built in the middle of one of the most arid places in America, on the shores of a lake formed by damming the Colorado. It’s a precariously artificial situation that people who live there don’t seem to be aware of let alone concerned about. I tell them, hey, you’re only able to live here because of “our” water, and they laugh.
While I plan to live here the rest of my life through whatever disasters befall mankind, I’m keenly aware that it all depends on water. If global warming causes less snow to fall in the Rockies, our water source and thus our ability to survive here will be threatened. This would be an occasion to migrate, though I’m not quite sure at this point to where.
Water is most assuredly an issue for the future regardless of what it holds. This is another example of “property” rights that just blows my mind. Owning land is one thing, but owning water?! First thing we ought to do when the oil runs out and we’re left to fend for ourselves up here is blow up those damn diversion tunnels.
It’s not just the water, but what the water provides; home for fish, that is at stake. Fish will be one of our main food sources in the event of a crisis. This seems like something we in the Valley should be protecting. Maybe a call to the RF Conservancy is in order.
I’ve spent some time in Havasu Arizona where the town is built in the middle of one of the most arid places in America, on the shores of a lake formed by damming the Colorado. It’s a precariously artificial situation that people who live there don’t seem to be aware of let alone concerned about. I tell them, hey, you’re only able to live here because of “our” water, and they laugh.
While I plan to live here the rest of my life through whatever disasters befall mankind, I’m keenly aware that it all depends on water. If global warming causes less snow to fall in the Rockies, our water source and thus our ability to survive here will be threatened. This would be an occasion to migrate, though I’m not quite sure at this point to where.
Comrades,
Imagine fifty years from now; water in the Rockies is even more scarce and seasonal due to a type of extended drought that wiped out the Anasazi. The desert belt has expanded North another 10degrees Latitude. Other than tropical cyclones and a few pulse thunderstorms, the South is as dry as the Sahara; not quite Monsoonal not quite absolute desert. The Sonoran and Mojave deserts expand and get much drier along with the central valley of CA. The great plains and lower midwest revert to dustbowl days, thirty years and running. Extremely low levels of fuel sources, force mass transit of people just to maintain a little mobility.
What type of economy do we have and what do the people do; hand out flags, bibles, have a war and vote Republican? That is why I haven’t been Republican since 1976 — absolutely no responsibility to the well being of this country. I have cited many reasons in other posts, and might be thanked for not doing so here, I hear the sigh of relief from the blogging collective, but are there answers, solutions, problem mitigation?
Comrades,
Imagine fifty years from now; water in the Rockies is even more scarce and seasonal due to a type of extended drought that wiped out the Anasazi. The desert belt has expanded North another 10degrees Latitude. Other than tropical cyclones and a few pulse thunderstorms, the South is as dry as the Sahara; not quite Monsoonal not quite absolute desert. The Sonoran and Mojave deserts expand and get much drier along with the central valley of CA. The great plains and lower midwest revert to dustbowl days, thirty years and running. Extremely low levels of fuel sources, force mass transit of people just to maintain a little mobility.
What type of economy do we have and what do the people do; hand out flags, bibles, have a war and vote Republican? That is why I haven’t been Republican since 1976 — absolutely no responsibility to the well being of this country. I have cited many reasons in other posts, and might be thanked for not doing so here, I hear the sigh of relief from the blogging collective, but are there answers, solutions, problem mitigation?
1.We could start by reading Richard Heinberg’s books;
http://www.richardheinberg.com/
Richard Heinberg has been honored with the M. King Hubbert Award for Excellence in Energy Education by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (USA). He is the author of The Party’s Over, Power Down, A New Covenant with nature and most recent; The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse.
Richard Heinberg has carefully examined the imminent peaking of world oil supplies and the potentially awful consequences for humanity. His very positive conclusion is that if we are to avoid massive disruption and strife, then the Oil Depletion Protocol represents a straightforward route to minimizing human misery and one that is easy and practical to apply. A strategy for a phased and cooperative post-petroleum world, The Oil Depletion Protocol provides leaders and citizens a model for discussion and implementation of cooperative steps to reverse the unsustainable trend of increased depletion of the world’s rapidly shrinking oil reserves.
From A New Covenant with Nature:
But of course there are alternatives, there are solutions. The path away from our predatory industrial-electronic civilization need not be an attempt to imitate the lifeways of the primitive peoples. We can relearn much of what has been forgotten in the march of “progress”. We can regain the sense of responsibility to land and life that indigenous peoples have always known. Even if we cannot now envision all the details of a post-imperial culture, we can at least speak of it in general terms, discuss the process by which it might come into being, and take practical steps toward its realization.
2. We can support the other recipient of the M. King Hubbert Award for Excellence in Energy Education this year; Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, chair of the Peak Oil caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives.
http://bartlett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=56091
3. We can join relocalization networks such as CEL; Carbondale Economic Localization, in the effort to localize our food and energy.
http://www.relocalize.net/groups/cel
1.We could start by reading Richard Heinberg’s books;
http://www.richardheinberg.com/
Richard Heinberg has been honored with the M. King Hubbert Award for Excellence in Energy Education by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (USA). He is the author of The Party’s Over, Power Down, A New Covenant with nature and most recent; The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse.
Richard Heinberg has carefully examined the imminent peaking of world oil supplies and the potentially awful consequences for humanity. His very positive conclusion is that if we are to avoid massive disruption and strife, then the Oil Depletion Protocol represents a straightforward route to minimizing human misery and one that is easy and practical to apply. A strategy for a phased and cooperative post-petroleum world, The Oil Depletion Protocol provides leaders and citizens a model for discussion and implementation of cooperative steps to reverse the unsustainable trend of increased depletion of the world’s rapidly shrinking oil reserves.
From A New Covenant with Nature:
But of course there are alternatives, there are solutions. The path away from our predatory industrial-electronic civilization need not be an attempt to imitate the lifeways of the primitive peoples. We can relearn much of what has been forgotten in the march of “progress”. We can regain the sense of responsibility to land and life that indigenous peoples have always known. Even if we cannot now envision all the details of a post-imperial culture, we can at least speak of it in general terms, discuss the process by which it might come into being, and take practical steps toward its realization.
2. We can support the other recipient of the M. King Hubbert Award for Excellence in Energy Education this year; Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, chair of the Peak Oil caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives.
http://bartlett.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=56091
3. We can join relocalization networks such as CEL; Carbondale Economic Localization, in the effort to localize our food and energy.
http://www.relocalize.net/groups/cel
We have been discussing Peak Oil as it relates to energy, but there is much more at stake. Consider all of the ordinary everyday items made from petroleum. Here are just a few…
Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, asphalt, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dishwashing liquid, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilizers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair coloring, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, life jackets, linoleum, lipstick, mops, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, anything plastic, refrigerators, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, spectacles, stereos, tape, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, toilet seats, toners, tape, TV cabinets, tires, umbrellas, upholstery, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax paper.
Add to this list most of the components of solar panels and wind turbines and we’ve got a BIG problem! It isn’t just about finding a replacement fuel to run our vehicles.
We have been discussing Peak Oil as it relates to energy, but there is much more at stake. Consider all of the ordinary everyday items made from petroleum. Here are just a few…
Air conditioners, ammonia, anti-histamines, antiseptics, asphalt, balloons, bandages, boats, bottles, bras, bubble gum, butane, cameras, candles, car batteries, car bodies, carpet, cassette tapes, caulking, CDs, combs/brushes, computers, contacts, cortisone, crayons, cream, denture adhesives, deodorant, detergents, dishwashing liquid, dryers, electric blankets, electrician’s tape, fertilizers, fishing lures, fishing rods, floor wax, footballs, glues, glycerin, golf balls, guitar strings, hair coloring, hearing aids, heart valves, heating oil, ice chests, ink, insect repellent, insulation, life jackets, linoleum, lipstick, mops, motorcycle helmets, movie film, nail polish, oil filters, paddles, paint brushes, paints, parachutes, paraffin, pens, perfumes, petroleum jelly, anything plastic, refrigerators, roofing paper, rubber bands, rubber boots, rubber cement, rubbish bags, shoes, shower curtains, solvents, spectacles, stereos, tape, telephones, tennis rackets, thermos, toilet seats, toners, tape, TV cabinets, tires, umbrellas, upholstery, vitamin capsules, volleyballs, water pipes, water skis, wax paper.
Add to this list most of the components of solar panels and wind turbines and we’ve got a BIG problem! It isn’t just about finding a replacement fuel to run our vehicles.
[What do the people do; hand out flags, bibles, have a war and vote Republican?]
One of the presumptions of global warming is that lands now considered arable will taken over by drought conditions, and that amount of arable land will increase toward the poles…
What does that mean for the Roaring Fork Valley’s high desert/semi-arid climate?
No model I have seen definitively explains the effects of Global Warming. Is it possible that instead of becoming more arid, this area will become more of a Mediterranean climate? Might the growing conditions of, say, Palisade make it’s way to higher elevations, along with more regular rain?
Some archeologists attribute a rapid increase in Anasazi population to regular rainfall patterns between 700 and 1100 AD. This population increase was not an effect of birthrate, but of peoples migrating into the area. Archaeologist Timothy A. Kohler contends that sites near Dolores were established during periods of above-average rainfall that allowed crops to be grown without irrigation.
Were this the effect of Global Warming, might people in a post-petroleum world flock here instead of move away?
While there are a number of static variables that determine climate, including latitude, altitude, proportion of land to water, and proximity to oceans and mountains, there are so many other variables that predicting the effect of a mean-temperature increase is a kind of black art.
One thing’s for sure: among the variables that will affect Roaring Fork Valley’s climate, you will not find nationalism, religion, human conflict, or political party preference.
Cheers,
[What do the people do; hand out flags, bibles, have a war and vote Republican?]
One of the presumptions of global warming is that lands now considered arable will taken over by drought conditions, and that amount of arable land will increase toward the poles…
What does that mean for the Roaring Fork Valley’s high desert/semi-arid climate?
No model I have seen definitively explains the effects of Global Warming. Is it possible that instead of becoming more arid, this area will become more of a Mediterranean climate? Might the growing conditions of, say, Palisade make it’s way to higher elevations, along with more regular rain?
Some archeologists attribute a rapid increase in Anasazi population to regular rainfall patterns between 700 and 1100 AD. This population increase was not an effect of birthrate, but of peoples migrating into the area. Archaeologist Timothy A. Kohler contends that sites near Dolores were established during periods of above-average rainfall that allowed crops to be grown without irrigation.
Were this the effect of Global Warming, might people in a post-petroleum world flock here instead of move away?
While there are a number of static variables that determine climate, including latitude, altitude, proportion of land to water, and proximity to oceans and mountains, there are so many other variables that predicting the effect of a mean-temperature increase is a kind of black art.
One thing’s for sure: among the variables that will affect Roaring Fork Valley’s climate, you will not find nationalism, religion, human conflict, or political party preference.
Cheers,
[...bras...]
G–are you suggesting that humans are not industrious enough to fashion a bra without using petroleum?
Cheers,
[...bras...]
G–are you suggesting that humans are not industrious enough to fashion a bra without using petroleum?
Cheers,
[Were this the effect of Global Warming, might people in a post-petroleum world flock here instead of move away?]
Eventually perhaps, but not in my lifetime. The gist is that post-oil humanity will have a chance to start over. We’ll initially revert back to a primitive lifestyle, then gain sophistication and some form of technology further on. Just as in the past, population will grow when climate is favorable and shrink when it isn’t. The artificially ideal conditions for an explosive human population caused by the petroleum boom may be duplicated someday by another energy source not yet realized. Perhaps this has happened before as the rumors of Atlantis point to. All is not lost, humans are infinitely clever and productive creatures. I have no doubt we’ll bounce back splendidly. Speaking of bounce…
[G--are you suggesting that humans are not industrious enough to fashion a bra without using petroleum?]
If the climate here becomes more temperate as you suggest, maybe we can just use cocoanuts!
[Were this the effect of Global Warming, might people in a post-petroleum world flock here instead of move away?]
Eventually perhaps, but not in my lifetime. The gist is that post-oil humanity will have a chance to start over. We’ll initially revert back to a primitive lifestyle, then gain sophistication and some form of technology further on. Just as in the past, population will grow when climate is favorable and shrink when it isn’t. The artificially ideal conditions for an explosive human population caused by the petroleum boom may be duplicated someday by another energy source not yet realized. Perhaps this has happened before as the rumors of Atlantis point to. All is not lost, humans are infinitely clever and productive creatures. I have no doubt we’ll bounce back splendidly. Speaking of bounce…
[G--are you suggesting that humans are not industrious enough to fashion a bra without using petroleum?]
If the climate here becomes more temperate as you suggest, maybe we can just use cocoanuts!
The Marx Bros. might be very pleased about cocoanuts.
The Marx Bros. might be very pleased about cocoanuts.
Cocoanuts?
Who knows, in a post-petroleum society, maybe we completely re-think what has to be the dog sweater of human attire.
Cheers,
Cocoanuts?
Who knows, in a post-petroleum society, maybe we completely re-think what has to be the dog sweater of human attire.
Cheers,
[Who knows, in a post-petroleum society, maybe we completely re-think what has to be the dog sweater of human attire.]
Ah…back to the happy days of lounging poolside at Silverking Apts. Save the coconuts for the telegraph.
[Who knows, in a post-petroleum society, maybe we completely re-think what has to be the dog sweater of human attire.]
Ah…back to the happy days of lounging poolside at Silverking Apts. Save the coconuts for the telegraph.
I don’t know how you men feel about it, but I’d be happy to trade in our current society’s obsession with L.A. boobs (implants) for National Geographic boobs.
I don’t know how you men feel about it, but I’d be happy to trade in our current society’s obsession with L.A. boobs (implants) for National Geographic boobs.
Gee, G, your ability to start a conversation has become legendary. Now, apparently, so has your ability to stop one.
Cheers,
Gee, G, your ability to start a conversation has become legendary. Now, apparently, so has your ability to stop one.
Cheers,
Whattaya mean, you’re the one who brought up the bra thing!
Well since this discussion has so devolved, guess it’s time to start a new one.
Thanks everyone, it’s been fun right to the end.
Whattaya mean, you’re the one who brought up the bra thing!
Well since this discussion has so devolved, guess it’s time to start a new one.
Thanks everyone, it’s been fun right to the end.
[...you're the one who brought up the bra thing!]
True. But you’re the one that opened the National Geographic! :-0
Cheers,
[...you're the one who brought up the bra thing!]
True. But you’re the one that opened the National Geographic! :-0
Cheers,