admin at survivalacres dot com

11 thoughts on “How About the Most Important Video You’ll Ever Watch?

  • December 8, 2007 at 7:49 am
    Thanks John,
    I hope many others are as interested to sit back, relax, and absorb all of this thoughtful and powerful talk. Really brings it home. Den
  • December 8, 2007 at 8:22 am
    Negative growth – aka halving time aka collapse – will work the same as doubling times – only IMO much faster.

    Exponentiation growth inevitably results in exponential decline. EVERY time.

    I’ve read several threads at PO and elsewhere discussing slow versus fast crash probabilities and effects. General consensus is that a slow crash (years to a decade) would ultimately be more destructive (due to prolonged time frame to wreck havoc) than a fast crash (months to a year) even though the end result, would be the much the same in human survival terms. But, the longer we ‘wait’ for the “great unfolding” gain momentum, the worse off the environment (planet) will become and therefore lower the numbers of supportable survivors will be.

    The longer die off is postponed, the greater the death rate will necessarily be. It may (has) start slowly and gain speed, but there is a threshold at which point madness reigns.

    I tend to agree.

    A ditty by ‘pixie’:

    Old McDonald had a war
    G I G I Joe!
    This war was triggered by resources
    G I G I Joe!
    With a famine here and soil erosion there
    Here a drought, there a plague,
    Everywhere a die back
    Old McDonald had a war
    G I G I Joe!

    Roccoman wrote:
    “The vast majority of people in the industrialized world have less than a week supply of food and if they do not have a pool less than 3 days water supply. Most will die in under 45 days from starvation and dehydration. The smart ones will have left the cities to their pre stocked crash=steads and wait it out.”

    Those who do “have a pool” won’t have water in it for long.
    Having a pool during collapse will be like having a greenhouse or a garden. Each being merely mutant zombie biker bait. Guaran-bushing-teed.

  • December 8, 2007 at 9:45 am
    I left a comment w/ no url in it. It did not post. Tried posting it again and message was I already posted that. Waited a half-hour and still hasn’t shown up.

    Basic premise was that exponential decline will work the same as exponential growth – only faster IMO

  • December 8, 2007 at 11:06 am

    It got caught as spam. There is software installed to prevent spam comments (now well over 3,000 attempts). Just be patient it doesn’t show, I check this often when I’m awake and online.

  • December 8, 2007 at 11:17 am
    Thank you. Slow connection, but I watched them all. Wow! How do you like your toast? Burnt or black?
  • December 8, 2007 at 11:59 am
    Lonewolf and Admin, on the slow crash/fast crash idea…

    I agree that fast is preferable to slow, at least from the viewpoint of life on earth. This raises a question that’s been on my mind for some time.

    Many greens believe in conservation – in the hope that the current system can be mended. I think most here, myself included, would disagree with that. Society and the world economy as currently configured are destroying everything – animal, mineral and vegetable through growth.

    Conservation actually helps to perpetuate the system, by allowing it more time to spread, and by making it more efficient. In economic terms this is described through “Jevon’s Paradox”, later re-packaged as “The Rebound Effect”, in which resources that are conserved simply get used up by someone, somewhere else. Increased efficiency of steam engines INCREASED coal consumption in the 19th century, rather than reduced it.

    Which raises a disturbing question, for me: what is the best course of action? It may be that the idiots driving Hummers are doing more good than harm, because they’re using up resources at a phenomenal rate – thereby bringing the crash forward. The people who think they’re helping “The Planet” may be doing more harm, as they (through conservation) are conserving resources – resources which are then used for a longer period of time, thereby prolonging the duration of industrial civilisation.

    This doesn’t mean that I’m going out to buy a Hummer. I’m going to have to start looking for a couple of acres with fresh water soon (VERY SOON); it just means that “The Law of Unintended Consequences” is a very strange beast indeed…

  • December 8, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    The problem isn’t just consumption as I’m sure you know. The problem is consumption of non-renewable resources and constantly expanding population levels.

    In essence, renewable resources will take care of themselves, provided we do not drive them into extinction first.  In time, they will recover.  But that is not true of non-renewable resources, which become increasingly scarce, expensive and difficult to obtain, yet our society is built almost entirely around their consumption!

    If we had limited ourselves somehow to just using renewable resources, we’d naturally fall into a rhythmic cycle of expanding the population until the renewable resources were depleted, then experience a natural population reduction until the renewable resources stabilized once again, and repeating the process over and over again (examples abound in the natural world).

    But the use of non-renewable resources permitted the leveraged extraction of both non-renewable resources and renewable resources far beyond their sustainable levels (non-renewables really don’t have “sustainable levels”, but there are tolerable limits of extraction and consumption, at least as far as humans have been concerned).

    The Green Movement repeatedly fails to address this issue, pretending that “healthy” alternatives for excessive consumption of non-renewables exist. This is not true, since they do not answer the root problem of overpopulation and how to actually control the consumption and use of non-renewables, which remains one of the major “economic engines” of the modern world (to our demise).

    The answer then, is to address the issues of renewable AND non-renewable resources and population levels, creating a truly sustainable way of life that would be very much different then what modern man has today (but not much different then tribal man).

    Population reduction is the ONLY course of action that has any chance at all of rectifying these problems. As a key component, this is the main underlying problem facing the world today. All else stems from overpopulation of non-renewable resources including pollution, degradation, desertification, acidification and all the other man-made “ills” that affect our planet (including “democracy”).

    Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your personal perspective, population reduction will happen, but it won’t be done humanely (just like it isn’t now, except it will be much, much worse on a massively accelerated scale). We know this is going to happen because it is exactly what we have been told will happen, and we can infer all the rest directly from what they have said, done and already did.

    So the best course of action is to do it humanely, as soon as possible, but this isn’t happening or even being allowed to happen. Barring that, it will be done non-humanely, even if we “do nothing” because the finite resource limits will impose this upon us anyway and our society will crash.

    This is why crash / collapse is a foregone conclusion. Whether man-made or natural, it will happen and there is nothing to be done about it and nothing that should be done about it, it’s far, far too late for that already.

    Postponing the collapse (slow crash) will only worsen an already bad situation, creating even more long term suffering and hardship for that particular generation (us).

    Hastening the collapse will reset the human population cycle clock that much sooner, and preserving and even preventing the untold suffering of future human generations.

    So which is it? This generation that suffers terribly, or the next generation?

    I guarantee, it will be one of us. I’m betting it will be us, because we are running out of some extremely critical resources. But if it’s not to be us (unlikely), it will be the next generation.

    Post-collapse “science” requires a different set of expectations and impacts, some of which have been covered here before.

  • December 10, 2007 at 4:19 pm
    Those were very interesting videos and I watched each one, thanks for posting them again as I’m unable to check your site every day.
    What hit me first was the body language of the students in the room. Perhaps I read too much into that arena however, there was maybe one or two that seemed to be remotely interested. (And it would have helped to see the students more often). However, crossed arms simply means you’re closing that person out, forget the “it’s comfortable excuse”.

    While I was only able to go to Community College it’s my understanding that University Professor’s are quite different. I’ve encountered enough University Professor’s though to know that their attitude is, nine times out of 10, one of swaying the students to their way of thinking and actually making the students activists. Not always a bad thing but in some cases it really is selfish thinking once someone contemplates it.
    Anyway …

    It has gotten to the point where a “crash” is desirable for me, so out of control is the human race, and I know most agree with that here.
    Unfortunately those who can see the train wreck coming, and would like to see a drastic change in direction, will get caught in the cross-hairs. With that said, at least “we” are somewhat better prepared then most. So what do we do because of our preparation? we somehow DETACH and let the broken pieces fall where they may.

    I found it interesting that Dr. Bartlett said education was of no use when he was discussing the Table of Contents graph on Increase/Decrease Populations. Deep within I noticed a long time ago that “education” has done little good to change anything in the areas he was discussing.

    Can’t remember which video it was, number two or three but the Table of Contents had: Increase Populations on one side that has procreation, motherhood, large families, immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation, peace, law and order, scientific agriculture, accident prevention, clean air, ignorance of the problem. Then the Decrease Population side had: abstention, contraception/abortion, small families, stopping immigration, disease, war, murder violence, famine, accidents, pollution.
    Duh? all of those things are happening now and will most likely continue until homo sapiens are no more on this planet. Plus neither extreme is the answer, it never has been and never will be.
    This is why I watch the H5N1 virus more closely than anything else. It would be an answer in some sort of deluded way.

  • December 15, 2007 at 7:13 pm
    Meanwhile, on a preparedness e-list today:

    “oil is supposively a fossil fuel correct? then how can archealogist find dino bones all over world and when
    they find these fossils why are they in bone solid form yet oil is in liquid form and the bones are no where near any sources of oil?????”

    I can’t even figure out where to START explaining why abiotic oil (not that he’d know the bloody term for his ‘the earth produces an infinite supply of oil’ part of his post) is crap. Do I start with the geology of where oil is actually found? Do I start with the physics of sun-photosynthesis-swampland/peat/fossil fuel? Do I start with chemistry? Do I start by simply ripping him a new asshole over ‘infinite’ ANYTHING on earth?

    I’m tired of people repeatedly proving that there certainly aren’t infinite brains on earth.

    Speaking of limited brains, my son is getting up at 4 am to stand in line starting at 5 am to get a Wii.


  • December 16, 2007 at 7:22 am
    oil derived primarily from algae – not dino bones

    and the Earth is only 6000 years old ! The Devil buried those dino bones where we could find them to mislead us into temptation – dontcha know

Leave a Reply