James Kunstler and Peak Oil

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Kaligula said:
A disturbing thought has just struck me:

Maybe the immigration as replacement workers trend, instead of having children at the replacement level, is due to the fact that Controllers of the World know that in the near future there will be not enough time to raise children anymore...?!

Imagine you know that there will be some kind of a big population catastrophe (war, disease) with limited mobility afterwards (no oil), but you still want to have some working-age population in the area...? So you import people before the event...

I know it is a bit sick, but we are in rather amoral zone now.

I think it's much easier than this :
1. The financial system needs growth.
2. Economic growth is mostly demographic growth.
3. We have a shitty situation now, we K-selected people sense it and don't make children anymore.
4. Our leaders need children anyway, because of points 1 and 2. How do you call people who will make children regardless of the situation ? r-selected. Where do you find these ? Africa mostly.
5. So they import africans in europe, thinking it solves the problem short-term.

And that's it really, no need for any conspiration theory.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
Oberrheiner said:
Kaligula said:
A disturbing thought has just struck me:

Maybe the immigration as replacement workers trend, instead of having children at the replacement level, is due to the fact that Controllers of the World know that in the near future there will be not enough time to raise children anymore...?!

Imagine you know that there will be some kind of a big population catastrophe (war, disease) with limited mobility afterwards (no oil), but you still want to have some working-age population in the area...? So you import people before the event...

I know it is a bit sick, but we are in rather amoral zone now.

I think it's much easier than this :
1. The financial system needs growth.
2. Economic growth is mostly demographic growth.
3. We have a shitty situation now, we K-selected people sense it and don't make children anymore.
4. Our leaders need children anyway, because of points 1 and 2. How do you call people who will make children regardless of the situation ? r-selected. Where do you find these ? Africa mostly.
5. So they import africans in europe, thinking it solves the problem short-term.

And that's it really, no need for any conspiration theory.

This used to be a standard media narrative.
In the past maybe, I am talking about the recent trend of accepting more and more refugees as a "moral duty" a la Merkel. Not talking about economy any more. At some stage, the EU even tried to offer money to Poland for accepting refugees, and it was quite a lot, like between 10000-30000 euro per capita, don't remember exactly/
There has been a crisis long time here in Europe. Nowadays Merkel must have heard something abot peak oil etc. A lot of those Africans cannot even read and write (I am on the Germans side of Rhein). The cost of preparing them to live in our society is higher, I suppose, than just having children by the natives. What they are to do? I have no slightest idea...

Also, from some point of view you can see feminism as an attempt at population control. Now, what do you do if, after all, you need more working-age people? You import them. So you need some additional factor to explain it. Why do you need those people so suddenly? The only one I have found is some population catastrophe on the horizon.
Well, we will see (or not) how it will play out.
In social sciences, generation is 30 years. The new generation shall not replace the old one, therefore you can assume that significant social changes are to be expected in the next 30 years.
 
Oberrheiner said:
questor70 said:
What I'm saying is that the 21st century is going to be defined in terms of creeping resource constraints, all of which tracing themselves back to the root cause of overpopulation, the elephant in the room nobody (including people here) wants to face.

Ok, let's talk about overpopulation :

55d38ec0dd089595388b46c6-750-563.png


Do you believe it would be a problem without foreign aid and migration ?
Serious question.

Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Kaligula said:
This used to be a standard media narrative.

Really ?

Well here in france you certainly had zero mainstream media saying that if locals won't have children the elite will just import foreigners to replace them.
This would have been gilets jaunes times ten.
Many people discovering this idea via alternate information sources certainly plays a role in this movement by the way.

infowarrior1 said:
Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.

I heard many people saying this, but what makes you think so ?

History certainly doesn't seem to support this theory.
Evolution on the other hand explains just fine why it never happened, so Occam's razor would have us believe that this theory is simply not true ?
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
Oberrheiner said:
Kaligula said:
This used to be a standard media narrative.

Really ?

Well here in france you certainly had zero mainstream media saying that if locals won't have children the elite will just import foreigners to replace them.
This would have been gilets jaunes times ten.
Many people discovering this idea via alternate information sources certainly plays a role in this movement by the way.




infowarrior1 said:
Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.

I heard many people saying this, but what makes you think so ?

History certainly doesn't seem to support this theory.
Evolution on the other hand explains just fine why it never happened, so Occam's razor would have us believe that this theory is simply not true ?


Well, the official narrative as I remember it wasn't so blunt and crude but more of a kind humanistic "everybody wins, human potential wins". I happened even to read one French minister's book of this sort, Luc Ferry "L'Homme-Dieu ou le sens de la vie",
(Man Made God: The Meaning of Life)

Well, I find it nice that in France you have this strong literary culture, that even politicans write books: Macron, Melechon etc.

The everybody wins narrative:
1. our advanced society has less children, women engage so much in sophisticated science careers that they do not have enough time for children because they haven't yet realized their own human potential. All that taken for granted, which is of course the false, un questioned premise.
2. poor people in Africa and Asia have no jobs
3. we have jobs for those poor people, and we need them (taxes, levies etc) because of our humming economy
4. everybody wins: our women are even more godlike than we used to think, African and Asian poor people are getting richer and more civilized on the side, our eldelry get their pensions etc


plus general blabla about capitalism duty to create opportunities for everyone, atonement for colonialism etc

The point is that not having children by locals was not presented as some anomaly which needs to be corrected, but as a natural consequence of our social progress: therefore good, as every progessive thing is good by definition. The usual comeback if someone tried to discuss was that you want "women closed in their homes, not developing their potential".


Nowadays I don't hear "everybody wins" mantra anymore but more about moral duty etc
 

questor70

Ostrich
infowarrior1 said:
Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.

Africa? Rich soils? Um, Sahara desert anyone? Plus Africa is going to be one of the worst hit from global warming, with Australia not far behind. I know China is trying to convert Africa into its breadbasket but it ain't gonna work, at least not for long.

Kaligula said:
what do you do if, after all, you need more working-age people?

In the short-run, robots.

A future society of fewer and fewer young people due to demographic shift where the lights stay on is ROBOTS.

Japan is already planning for that, for instance, although also fighting tooth and nail to goose the birth rates (which I don't think they should do).
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
questor70 said:
infowarrior1 said:
Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.

Africa? Rich soils? Um, Sahara desert anyone? Plus Africa is going to be one of the worst hit from global warming, with Australia not far behind. I know China is trying to convert Africa into its breadbasket but it ain't gonna work, at least not for long.

Kaligula said:
what do you do if, after all, you need more working-age people?

In the short-run, robots.

A future society of fewer and fewer young people due to demographic shift where the lights stay on is ROBOTS.

Japan is already planning for that, for instance, although also fighting tooth and nail to goose the birth rates (which I don't think they should do).

I suppose you may be right. I also see the attempts to introduce a basic income as a step in this direction, meaning decoupling your life from monetary profit. That, however, brings to the fore the fact that one of the biggest problem in change is our financial system which is based on growth.

Who knows, maybe the creeping islamisation of Europe is supposed to help here, as islam is not compatible with what they call "Usury".
The fact that islam is not modern may turn out to be its strength, finally. Also in islam there is duty of alms (zakat), one of the 5 pillars of islam, with which you could justify basic income, and Zakat is assessed against your wealth not just your revenue (in the West, it is easy to cheat by being reach with negative [losses] income stream: you have tax consulting industry for that ). And for all talk about equality, Europe still has a very hierarchic mindset and people are not ready to share; the recent Swiss basic income referendum dismissed the proposition.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
One of the big problems of the West, and the sad legacy of the Roman Empire is fiscalism and legalism.
Even nowadays, the only measures which we try to apply are either new taxes or new laws. It all backfired in Rome. With the deepening crisis, the Romans produced more and more draconian laws, which only resulted in local uprisings like bagaudae
With Gilets Jaunes, I already start to see some parallels (even the same place - Galia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagaudae

Legalism breeds the culture of bureacracy, which starts to live for itself, like EU.
Let's look upon Greece, the country which since its entry to EU in 1980 really got a lot of subsidies. What are effects?! You see yourself. But surely they learnt to fill in applications for subsidies. Anyway, the recent development of China, a country with very weak legal system, definitely proved that legalism is not so important as the West likes to stress.

The Romans had a dislike of technological innovations, too. The emperor Vespasian bought once plans of technological innvention just to destroy it, because, well, what would happen with the people who used to do this stuff prior to an invention?
Our capitalism of this late stage, the capitalism of the rent, acts often in similar ways. In this way, Vespasian is just a CEO who buys some other firm to protect his own rent. The mergers of companies, buying them up often leads to discontinuation of interesting ideas... And have you already met with patent industry...? Also, the cost of patents is often prohibitively high for anyone new in the business to introduce anything new into the market. Very often, there is not enough "commons", or free market, for anyone new to develop profitably its own business. It is no accident that Tesla etc are ventures subsidiesed by government.

I really think that we lack a kind of religious, or revolutionary, mindset which would allow us to sucessfully struggle forward.... With such a mindset, Arabs conquered Meditarrean, and the French revolution its enemies. Without such a mindset, all kinds of carbon taxes will not help.
But we are not religious society. In religious society, religion conquers everything else. Ask yourself: what conquers everything else in our society?!


To anyone who would like to study this cross between West civilization and its mindset, I recommend the excellent and unique work by Aldo Schiavone, The End of the Past. Ancient Rome and the Modern West:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674009837
 

questor70

Ostrich
Islam has no appreciation for birth-control. Places like the Palestinian territories are the most densely packed on the planet as a result. It's not part of any sort of solution.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
questor70 said:
Islam has no appreciation for birth-control. Places like the Palestinian territories are the most densely packed on the planet as a result. It's not part of any sort of solution.

Palestine is a special case. They are convinced that they must wage "demographic warfare" on Israel. Still, what is noteworthy in those conditions is that both Hamas and Hezbollah have developed extensive charity networks to help the general population of the area. Instead of being dismissive, maybe we could study a bit more how they managed to become so resilient.
Another point: real warfare conditions upon people (i.e. when war really comes to you) are reality check on government. The corrupt Fatah lost its power despite the legend of its founder, Arafat. Similarly, in Roman Empire, the best recommendation for becoming an emperor was to be a successful field commander.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Kaligula said:
The everybody wins narrative:
1. our advanced society has less children, women engage so much in sophisticated science careers that they do not have enough time for children because they haven't yet realized their own human potential. All that taken for granted, which is of course the false, un questioned premise.
2. poor people in Africa and Asia have no jobs
3. we have jobs for those poor people, and we need them (taxes, levies etc) because of our humming economy
4. everybody wins: our women are even more godlike than we used to think, African and Asian poor people are getting richer and more civilized on the side, our eldelry get their pensions etc

Ok let's reformulate that narrative then :
- intelligent women could work and make (and spend) money. More money, more taxes, more GDP, capitalism is happy. If they make children none of that happens : it's thus discouraged by the system.
- "poor" (low IQ, really) people can't find jobs, forcing them into the system would either be very expensive, or not work at all. For not much money we can house them in hutches and pay them to make babies. They would not be good for anything else anyway, so it's encouraged by the system.
- capitalism wins, and yes it's dysfunctional in nature so in the end we all lose.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
Oberrheiner said:
Kaligula said:
The everybody wins narrative:
1. our advanced society has less children, women engage so much in sophisticated science careers that they do not have enough time for children because they haven't yet realized their own human potential. All that taken for granted, which is of course the false, un questioned premise.
2. poor people in Africa and Asia have no jobs
3. we have jobs for those poor people, and we need them (taxes, levies etc) because of our humming economy
4. everybody wins: our women are even more godlike than we used to think, African and Asian poor people are getting richer and more civilized on the side, our eldelry get their pensions etc

Ok let's reformulate that narrative then :
- intelligent women could work and make (and spend) money. More money, more taxes, more GDP, capitalism is happy. If they make children none of that happens : it's thus discouraged by the system.
- "poor" (low IQ, really) people can't find jobs, forcing them into the system would either be very expensive, or not work at all. For not much money we can house them in hutches and pay them to make babies. They would not be good for anything else anyway, so it's encouraged by the system.
- capitalism wins, and yes it's dysfunctional in nature so in the end we all lose.

Well, another rule of the capitalism game is that everybody is equal and can improve his life.
So, putting poor people in hutches would not work, as they officially would become second-class citizens. For that to work you need some other master narrative, something out of Huxley's "The brave, new world". Anyway, in reality in the West some poor people do live from child allowances from the state but it still does not lead to the replacement level of the population.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Oh, well here in france we totally have that, both poor people of immigrant descent living in hutches as second-class citizens, and those people being responsible for the fertility rates we have, it's even been discussed on this forum already.

I lived a couple of years in public housing in the paris suburbs and I can tell you this is exactly what I saw every day.

47211.HR.jpg


Of course state money is not the main income source there, illegal businesses are.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
Oberrheiner said:
Oh, well here in france we totally have that, both poor people of immigrant descent living in hutches as second-class citizens, and those people being responsible for the fertility rates we have, it's even been discussed on this forum already.

I lived a couple of years in public housing in the paris suburbs and I can tell you this is exactly what I saw every day.

47211.HR.jpg


Of course state money is not the main income source there, illegal businesses are.

Well, it does look even worse than known to me communist high rises in Poland.
Totally do not understand the idea of concentrating all those immigrants in such places. What kind of illegal business? They can't sell weed to each other all the time,can they?.
So what parts of population are yet productive in France?
Small businesses, restaurants etc?
Or only big ones like ELF, Alstom, Renault etc?


On the other hand, the French ambassador in Warsaw recently vehemently attacked the Polish Foreign Minister for saying "France is a sick of man of Europe" in the context of Gilets Jaunes protests. The ambassador stressed "In EU we are all together in this." (?!) Whatever. It is nice to know that Louis XIV maxim"L'État c'est moi!" still lives in France! But, seriously, does the French elite has similar sense of ownership of EU as the German elite has?

Anyway, you shouldn't take it to yourself as a French, of course, Polish government just used opportunity to fire back for constant pounding we have been recently getting from Merkel and Macron for "tolerating fascism and lawlessness".
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Well we have something that poland is missing, won't dwelve on that.
But it was far from the worst place in france : behold marseille, the jewel of the mediterranean :)

F13-MR811-marseille-cite-bellevue.jpg


260477.jpg


DUd_DLRV4AEtjKU.jpg:large


The "businesses" in paris mostly revolved around drugs, the customers being mostly outside of these zones.
Marseille is different since it's a port.

Many parts of the french population are productive, especially blue collars in the countryside.
In Paris mostly white-collar jobs creating intangible stuff, so it's up to you whether you consider that productive or not.
To me this city became a chancre on the face of the country anyway, we would be better off if it was razed.
 

questor70

Ostrich
Kaligula said:
Instead of being dismissive, maybe we could study a bit more how they managed to become so resilient.

They're not resilient, though. They're basically a welfare state who leans on the victim card while begging for handouts. The more they suffer the more they are pitied and propped up with charity. There's really no incentive on their part to make something out of their situation because they are seen as the world's martyrs.

You can't count on charity in a future of lifeboat ethics. You have to prove to other countries that you have something to trade with them in exchange for what you can't produce. If you're just a leech you're gonna get your lifeline pulled. There are already several "deadwood" failed states out there. North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmarr. Places like that which are nothing but resource sinks are going to be first to go under, and of course, they won't go quietly into that good night, in which case the migration situation will become epidemic and very bloody.
 
questor70 said:
infowarrior1 said:
Africa has enough rich soils and a large enough continent that were it not for Food Aid destroying local industry could develop over time a robust Agriculture.

Africa? Rich soils? Um, Sahara desert anyone? Plus Africa is going to be one of the worst hit from global warming, with Australia not far behind. I know China is trying to convert Africa into its breadbasket but it ain't gonna work, at least not for long.

Kaligula said:
what do you do if, after all, you need more working-age people?

In the short-run, robots.

A future society of fewer and fewer young people due to demographic shift where the lights stay on is ROBOTS.

Japan is already planning for that, for instance, although also fighting tooth and nail to goose the birth rates (which I don't think they should do).

You are right. Although I would be referring to Sub-Saharan Africa.
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
questor70 said:
Kaligula said:
Instead of being dismissive, maybe we could study a bit more how they managed to become so resilient.

They're not resilient, though. They're basically a welfare state who leans on the victim card while begging for handouts. The more they suffer the more they are pitied and propped up with charity. There's really no incentive on their part to make something out of their situation because they are seen as the world's martyrs.

You can't count on charity in a future of lifeboat ethics. You have to prove to other countries that you have something to trade with them in exchange for what you can't produce. If you're just a leech you're gonna get your lifeline pulled. There are already several "deadwood" failed states out there. North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmarr. Places like that which are nothing but resource sinks are going to be first to go under, and of course, they won't go quietly into that good night, in which case the migration situation will become epidemic and very bloody.

Even if they get money from donors, they still manage to share them in such a way as to provide for everyone. They may not be so resilient as Cuba in the years between the end of USSR and the advent of Chavez, but still they have low corruption (compare that to Ukraine, for example). On the other hand, Israel is getting huge sums of donor money too, but the quality of life has been going down there for an average citizen.
I think about Hezbollah especially as a kind of modern Sparta.

In general, I think that states organized in a socialist-like, communal way - Cuba, some islam-based states (not all), former USSR, are a bit more resilient than the purely capitalist ones. I think this point was made by Dymitry Orlov in his writings on USSR collapse. In the former communist states, one of the things people are missing is the sense of community, of being together. Maybe it will appear in the West when its people will realize that they cannot improve their lives anymore, too, but it will be a long way till this become official. In Switzerland 77% voted against basic income.
In general, I would be wary a bit of this capitalist, Hobbesian mindset of bellum omnium contra omnes (everyone with everyone war), unless of course we trade. This is anthropology upon which capitalism is based, and is a bit grim, I would say.
In spite of Adam Smith and its holy Grail of trade, I do not think that the future will be based purely on trade; I expect more of barter exchange with your allies only. Due to expected general pauperization of population, I also think that providing utilities for very small fee, as it was in USSR, is the only option if we want to avoid some radical, violent scenario. Nevertheless, the current Western trend of utilities privatisation is exactly the opposite to what is needed.
Therefore, my recurring doubt is: do the powers that be know? do they want it?
My impression is that at some point earlier the resource problem was treated seriosuly (Carter presidency, for example), but then that stopped altogether. I do not understand that.

BTW, Venezuela has a lot to trade - its oil. I take Venezuela downfall after Chavez to be a result of constant meddling of USA, which obviously enforces its Monroe Doctrine. It is also an example that states based on resources only are not very resilient, in fact, just compare Venezuela with Cuba. Arab oil monarchies next? Obviously Arab oil is US oil....
 

Kaligula

Woodpecker
A pretty good article explaining why diesel shortages mean that the peak oil has indeed arrived. It also explains new taxes on diesel, taxes which gave rise to the ongoing protests in France.


https://www.resilience.org/stories/...if-you-own-a-diesel-car-it-is-coming-for-you/


This last observation is quite relevant because if, as you can guess, the industry is cracking less heavy fuel oil to ensure that the production of diesel does not go down too much, the rapid fall of heavy fuel oil will quickly drag down the diesel production. In fact, the graph shows that, after falling in 2015 and 2016, in 2017, it was possible to stabilize the production of all fuel oils, but it is also seen that in recent months there was a quite rapid fall.
Surely, in this shortage, we can start noting the absence of some 2.5 Mb/d of conventional oil (more versatile for refining and therefore more suitable for the production of fuel oil), as we were told by the International Energy Agency in his last annual report. This explains the urgency to get rid of the diesel that has lately shaken the chancelleries of Europe: they hide behind real environmental problems (which have always troubled diesel, but which were always given less than a hoot) to try to make a quick adaptation to a situation of scarcity. A shortage that can be brutal, since no prevention was performed for a situation that has long been seen coming.


With regard to the fact that the demand for diesel does not increase [so this is our real goal now (!), mind you, not economic "growth". Kaligula], prices have a considerable influence: this is how shortages are regulated in a market economy. And, as for the environmental reasons, the production of heavy gas oil has been dropping from 2007, when there was not as much regulatory interest as there seems to be now. There is one aspect of the new regulations that I think is interesting to highlight here: from 2020 onwards, all ships will have to use fuel with a lower sulfur content. Since, typically, the large freighters use very heavy fuel oils, that requirement, they say, makes one fear that a shortage of diesel will occur. In fact, from what we have discussed in this post, what seems to be happening is that heavy fuel oils are declining very fast and ships will have no choice but to switch to diesel. That this is going to cause problems of diesel shortage is more than evident. It is an imminent problem, even more than the peaks in oil prices that, according to what the IEA announces, will appear by 2025.


That is why, dear reader, when you are told that the taxes on your diesel car will be raised in a brutal way, now you know why. Because it is preferred to adjust these imbalances with a mechanism that seems to be a market (although this is actually less free and more adjusted) rather than telling the truth. The fact is that, from now on, what can be expected is a real persecution against cars with an internal combustion engine (gasoline will be next, a few years after diesel).
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Our leaders do seem to plan for a lack of diesel soon, this is true.
Fuel (diesel) heating is heavily pushed out to be replaced by either heatpumps or wood-based boilers (mostly pellets).

Not whether this is justified or not .. who knows.
And of course they won't tell us why or what, what would it cost them really ?
It would certainly help with acceptance issues.
 
Top