Dear Candidate: What if growth was over?

[The Rabbi]

We've seen this movie before. I think it starred Jimmy Carter in his cardigan in the White House telling us we needed to do more with less.
Ronald Reagan stomped all over that crap and we had the biggest peacetime expansion since WW2.
This is the 1970s all over again, ugly cars and doomsday scenarios telling us our way of life is all over.
The OP is fundamentally flawed and completely stupid. How about if no technological innovation ever occurred again? How about if people lost the power of independent thought? How about if everyone began voting Democratic?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdDjOHYyCSg]YouTube - Bob Hope Zombie Democrats[/ame]

 

[KissMy]

You have no idea what you're blathering about. Growth is based on natural resources, and the ability they provide to do work. It has ZERO to do with polar opposite political ideology.

Could you be more retarded? Don't answer that, your next post will be along any moment now.

So typical of you clowns to isolate and identify some fictional "enemy" for all that ails America, while ignoring and apologizing for corporate grease skidding and deregulation at every turn -- you know, the REAL culprits dooming America in an age of dwindling energy and exploding population.

Nuclear has severe uranium limitations. Coal is also limited, unless you consider abundant (but useless) lignate in the reserve total, as do the liars who promote vast coal totals. There isn't enough good coal left, and even the good stuff is highly toxic, and won't maintain growth for societies dependent on 7% expansion. Wake up.

China is 3 times our population & growing between 8% - 12%. 7% growth in the USA is possible.

 

[KissMy]

You evil sense speaker!!!!

How dare you fly in the face of faith-based economic rationale!!!!

Everyone knows if you just pray hard enough, and pour enough money at dry holes in the ground, God will obviously put more oil in the ground. Nevermind the data.

God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years. Nevermind the data quoted by doomers below.

In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."

That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.

In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."

In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.

In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"

Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again by the August numbers. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.

Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Oil Trades Near 1-Month Low After U.S. Supplies Rise to Highest in Decades

The U.S. Energy Department report yesterday showed that total petroleum stockpiles surged to the highest level in at least 20 years.

Growth is possible once Doomocrats are out of office.

 

[midcan5]

Excellent OP.

Asking a tough question usually gets the same simple minded nonsense reply from the right wingnuts. One has to realize most wingnuts see the world in so limited a way, their life with mommy and daddy and uncle George is all they can see. Asking them to jump outside personal reality for the big picture is asking too much.

If the wingnuts examined their own premises put forth above, why would they complain so much about immigration and the growth of bureaucracy in government. If space and resources are unlimited why measure anything, why even consider taxes, surely they could just make more money? But again I repeat you ask too hard a question of the 'contented class.' Surely a few immigrants won't spoil the porridge. (Weird but I already know their reply )

Consider too the recent crash caused by the very ideas and theories put forth by the wingnuts on the right, if growth were so wonderful and infinite, why the constant economic crashes? Particularly after republican wingnuttery? Why is it necessary today for husband and wife to work? And why do the wingnuts not live genuinely pro life, and have lots of children? Resources are unlimited aren't they?

Geologic time is long and life is short, trying to get the narrow minded concerned and interested in a sustainable life style is difficult if not impossible. We see only so far. I watch dumps along the Delaware grow to mountains and I wonder when they will stop, but today some people do recognize limits, it is only saying so that bothers the nuts on the right. They need a foe to feel real. The frame needs to be changed as children's thoughts are established early and rarely change.

It is good to see grasslands off limits, farm areas set aside, suburban sprawl slowing, wetlands protected, national parks protected, man's greed and stupidity are infinite but thankfully some see a cleaner and more beautiful future. Anyone who wants the crowds and turmoil of China, India, or other third world nations is free to travel. When these nations use resources as America does we will have some interesting dilemmas.

Check out Derrick Jensen's work for a tough point of view.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/What-Leave-Behind-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1583228675/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind (9781583228678): Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books[/ame]


See also "Planet Earth" by the BBC, an excellent picture of the changing scene.


"Globalization creates interlocking fragility, while reducing volatility and giving the appearance of stability....We have never lived before under the threat of a global collapse. Financial Institutions have been merging into a smaller number of very large banks. Almost all banks are interrelated. So the financial ecology is swelling into gigantic, incestuous, bureaucratic banks – when one fails, they all fall. The increased concentration among banks seems to have the effect of making financial crises less likely, but when they happen they are more global in scale and hit us very hard. We have moved from a diversified ecology of small banks, with varied lending policies, to a more homogeneous framework of firms that all resemble one another. True, we now have fewer failures, but when they occur...I shiver at the thought." Nassim Nicholas Taleb

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Excellent OP.

Asking a tough question usually gets the same simple minded nonsense reply from the right wingnuts. One has to realize most wingnuts see the world in so limited a way, their life with mommy and daddy and uncle George is all they can see. Asking them to jump outside personal reality for the big picture is asking too much.

If the wingnuts examined their own premises put forth above, why would they complain so much about immigration and the growth of bureaucracy in government. If space and resources are unlimited why measure anything, why even consider taxes, surely they could just make more money? But again I repeat you ask too hard a question of the 'contented class.' Surely a few immigrants won't spoil the porridge. (Weird but I already know their reply )

Consider too the recent crash caused by the very ideas and theories put forth by the wingnuts on the right, if growth were so wonderful and infinite, why the constant economic crashes? Particularly after republican wingnuttery? Why is it necessary today for husband and wife to work? And why do the wingnuts not live genuinely pro life, and have lots of children? Resources are unlimited aren't they?

Geologic time is long and life is short, trying to get the narrow minded concerned and interested in a sustainable life style is difficult if not impossible. We see only so far. I watch dumps along the Delaware grow to mountains and I wonder when they will stop, but today some people do recognize limits, it is only saying so that bothers the nuts on the right. They need a foe to feel real. The frame needs to be changed as children's thoughts are established early and rarely change.

It is good to see grasslands off limits, farm areas set aside, suburban sprawl slowing, wetlands protected, national parks protected, man's greed and stupidity are infinite but thankfully some see a cleaner and more beautiful future. Anyone who wants the crowds and turmoil of China, India, or other third world nations is free to travel. When these nations use resources as America does we will have some interesting dilemmas.

Check out Derrick Jensen's work for a tough point of view.

Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind (9781583228678): Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books


See also "Planet Earth" by the BBC, an excellent picture of the changing scene.


"Globalization creates interlocking fragility, while reducing volatility and giving the appearance of stability....We have never lived before under the threat of a global collapse. Financial Institutions have been merging into a smaller number of very large banks. Almost all banks are interrelated. So the financial ecology is swelling into gigantic, incestuous, bureaucratic banks – when one fails, they all fall. The increased concentration among banks seems to have the effect of making financial crises less likely, but when they happen they are more global in scale and hit us very hard. We have moved from a diversified ecology of small banks, with varied lending policies, to a more homogeneous framework of firms that all resemble one another. True, we now have fewer failures, but when they occur...I shiver at the thought." Nassim Nicholas Taleb

LOL. Anyone want to take a guess and when and how we moved away from small banks?

I long for the day when Progressives stop using resources.

 

[KissMy]

LOL. Anyone want to take a guess and when and how we moved away from small banks?

I long for the day when Progressives stop using resources.

I guarantee every progressive posting on this thread uses more resources than I. Yet they have the audacity to preach to us with their holier than thou ideals from the point of pure stupidity because they are totally clueless about actually living a low resource life. I say life instead of lifestyle because there will be no style, as style is a waste of resources.

You will not be able to maintain your current standard of living off the grid & without the benefit of products made on the grid. I have yet to meet a democrat living off the grid. I know many who want to impose their nutty restrictions on others but do not live by the code.

 

[Oddball]

Excellent OP.

Asking a tough question usually gets the same simple minded nonsense reply from the right wingnuts. One has to realize most wingnuts see the world in so limited a way, their life with mommy and daddy and uncle George is all they can see. Asking them to jump outside personal reality for the big picture is asking too much.

If the wingnuts examined their own premises put forth above, why would they complain so much about immigration and the growth of bureaucracy in government. If space and resources are unlimited why measure anything, why even consider taxes, surely they could just make more money? But again I repeat you ask too hard a question of the 'contented class.' Surely a few immigrants won't spoil the porridge. (Weird but I already know their reply )

Consider too the recent crash caused by the very ideas and theories put forth by the wingnuts on the right, if growth were so wonderful and infinite, why the constant economic crashes? Particularly after republican wingnuttery? Why is it necessary today for husband and wife to work? And why do the wingnuts not live genuinely pro life, and have lots of children? Resources are unlimited aren't they?

Geologic time is long and life is short, trying to get the narrow minded concerned and interested in a sustainable life style is difficult if not impossible. We see only so far. I watch dumps along the Delaware grow to mountains and I wonder when they will stop, but today some people do recognize limits, it is only saying so that bothers the nuts on the right. They need a foe to feel real. The frame needs to be changed as children's thoughts are established early and rarely change.

It is good to see grasslands off limits, farm areas set aside, suburban sprawl slowing, wetlands protected, national parks protected, man's greed and stupidity are infinite but thankfully some see a cleaner and more beautiful future. Anyone who wants the crowds and turmoil of China, India, or other third world nations is free to travel. When these nations use resources as America does we will have some interesting dilemmas.

Check out Derrick Jensen's work for a tough point of view.

Amazon.com: What We Leave Behind (9781583228678): Derrick Jensen, Aric McBay: Books


See also "Planet Earth" by the BBC, an excellent picture of the changing scene.


"Globalization creates interlocking fragility, while reducing volatility and giving the appearance of stability....We have never lived before under the threat of a global collapse. Financial Institutions have been merging into a smaller number of very large banks. Almost all banks are interrelated. So the financial ecology is swelling into gigantic, incestuous, bureaucratic banks – when one fails, they all fall. The increased concentration among banks seems to have the effect of making financial crises less likely, but when they happen they are more global in scale and hit us very hard. We have moved from a diversified ecology of small banks, with varied lending policies, to a more homogeneous framework of firms that all resemble one another. True, we now have fewer failures, but when they occur...I shiver at the thought." Nassim Nicholas Taleb

I hope you didn't lay awake for two nights, trying to come up with enough truisms, non sequiturs, platitudes and dopey leftloon cliches to pack into that heap of dreck.

And speaking of not being able to see over the horizon, it seems to me that some of the largest share of short-sightedness comes from the Malthusian declinist types, who always seem to let the fact that technologies don't stand still whistle clean over their sullen and morose heads.

As for the standard boilerplate mewling about the centralization of banking power, you need look no further back than 1913 and the actions of the oh-so-great warmongering, bigoted, progressive hero, Woodrow Wilson, to pick up the thread if the Federal Reserve deceit.

 

[8537]

Been hearing that since Christ was an altar boy.

BTW...Have you heard that the Mayan calendar says that it's all over for mankind in December of 2012?

Do the math, fucktard.

Exponential growth can't defeat limited resources.

You lose. And if you don't realize it it is because you can't do high school level math.

NEXT!

Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich did the same math.....All of them were and continue to be wrong.

All of them refused to take into account that nothing is more fungible, adaptive, inventive and indomitable than the human spirit.

Now, get back to stockpiling caned goods in your basement.

Again, you mention some alleged decline prediction by Galbraith. Other than spouting that talking point, can you direct the dear reader to that claim by Galbraith?

 

[The Rabbi]

Do the math, fucktard.

Exponential growth can't defeat limited resources.

You lose. And if you don't realize it it is because you can't do high school level math.

NEXT!

Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich did the same math.....All of them were and continue to be wrong.

All of them refused to take into account that nothing is more fungible, adaptive, inventive and indomitable than the human spirit.

Now, get back to stockpiling caned goods in your basement.

Again, you mention some alleged decline prediction by Galbraith. Other than spouting that talking point, can you direct the dear reader to that claim by Galbraith?

The Affluent Society (1958).

 

[8537]

Malthus, Galbraith and Ehrlich did the same math.....All of them were and continue to be wrong.

All of them refused to take into account that nothing is more fungible, adaptive, inventive and indomitable than the human spirit.

Now, get back to stockpiling caned goods in your basement.

Again, you mention some alleged decline prediction by Galbraith. Other than spouting that talking point, can you direct the dear reader to that claim by Galbraith?

The Affluent Society (1958).

Clearly, you've never even read the cover page of The Affluent Society. It makes no prediction of resource depletion leading to economy decline.

It DOES do a nice job of demonstrating the negative impact of future comingling of the interests of government and very large corporations as well as the growth retardation caused by that comingling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait, do Progressives that Earth based hydro carbons only come from pressure cooked velicoraptors? Is that what's driving the hysteria?

 

[JiggsCasey]

Wait, do Progressives that Earth based hydro carbons only come from pressure cooked velicoraptors? Is that what's driving the hysteria?

Still desperately clinging to that long-debunked Cold War, Russian abiotic oil theory are ya?



Irony...

Well, you're not called CONservatives without reason.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again by the August numbers. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.

Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Trotting out that same chart that got debunked and put into proper perspective weeks ago, are ya? Do you think everyone on this board is stupid, and you can just pretend your nonsense wasn't crushed?

Yeah, again... Let's review my response to your short-sighted goofiness in that thread:

moron, that graph measures ALL liquid fuels... not light crude... your graph includes production from the vastly non-viable tar sands ... which underscores my point, not yours. ... It proves conventional crude is waning, and we must rely on far more expensive, dirtier hydrocarbon energies. ...

your last 2-3 posts are beyond laughable.... you officially don't know what you're talking about... this was confirmed by the fact that you actually believe the last 39 years of U.S. oil production decline is a mere result of politics, not geology. ... Right, of course. ... clearly you know far more than petrol geologist, the IEA, the Pentagon, and the Dept. of Energy.
​

Oops, nope... Sure don't.

You need to take a much closer look at what you're trying to present with your EIA spreadsheet, hopey.

Look at the 2006 total world supply average vs. 2009 total world supply average... That's a DOWNWARD slope, chap.... Not up. ... Demand went up til 2008, and then DOWN after the crash and recession of 2008. ... Supply affects the economy, which affects demand, not the other way around.

I can see why you didn't wanna link it at first, and just wrote "is rising," and hoped no one followed up. ... Your premise just fell on its ass.

Again, WHERE is the new oil going forward that will satisfy 85 million - 95 million barrels per day of demand consumption? You won't answer because you can't find it. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. Period, end of story.
​

Keep posting that miss-the-point chart. I'll be right behind you to remind the forum how full of crap you are.

 

[loosecannon]

I admit nothing other than you're a dour little complainy-pants, who has no imagination for anything other than to dream up dystopian doomsday scenarios....And completely unimaginative ones at that.

Sheesh...At least Mad Max and Terminator movies could keep people entertained for an hour and a half or so.

entertaining the brain dead for hours is your job.

I am merely imparting basic truth that anybody with a brain can grok.

There are not enough resources on earth to support an ever expanding population and their insatiable needs/wants.

WORD!

 

[loosecannon]

You have no idea what you're blathering about. Growth is based on natural resources, and the ability they provide to do work. It has ZERO to do with polar opposite political ideology.

Could you be more retarded? Don't answer that, your next post will be along any moment now.

So typical of you clowns to isolate and identify some fictional "enemy" for all that ails America, while ignoring and apologizing for corporate grease skidding and deregulation at every turn -- you know, the REAL culprits dooming America in an age of dwindling energy and exploding population.

Nuclear has severe uranium limitations. Coal is also limited, unless you consider abundant (but useless) lignate in the reserve total, as do the liars who promote vast coal totals. There isn't enough good coal left, and even the good stuff is highly toxic, and won't maintain growth for societies dependent on 7% expansion. Wake up.

China is 3 times our population & growing between 8% - 12%. 7% growth in the USA is possible.

only if China sucks it up and stops using our oil, copper, pig ears, etc.

 

[loosecannon]

You evil sense speaker!!!!

How dare you fly in the face of faith-based economic rationale!!!!

Everyone knows if you just pray hard enough, and pour enough money at dry holes in the ground, God will obviously put more oil in the ground. Nevermind the data.

God has obviously put more oil in the ground for the last hundred years. Nevermind the data quoted by doomers below.

In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."

That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.

In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."

In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.

In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"

Awe, The Peak Oil doomers are busted again by the August numbers. The chart below shows production capacity is outpacing actual production. We also have a glut of oil in storage. The price of oil is dropping even as the US Dollar weakens. THERE IS NO PEAK OIL.

Total World oil production capacity in July 2010 increased by 820,000 b/d from June 2010 from 90.16 to 90.98 million b/d. World production capacity is measured here as the sum of world liquids production excluding biofuels plus total OPEC spare capacity excluding Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria.

Oil Trades Near 1-Month Low After U.S. Supplies Rise to Highest in Decades

The U.S. Energy Department report yesterday showed that total petroleum stockpiles surged to the highest level in at least 20 years.

Growth is possible once Doomocrats are out of office.

Sorry charlie, GAWD didn't place any more oil in the ground. Oil companies just discovered the means to drill it from 30,000 feet below the surface even in miles deep oceans.

But at risks so high it isn't likely to be sustainable post Deepwater Discovery.

Who wants to risk a $40 billion liability to sequester $150 million in oil?

 

[Oddball]

I admit nothing other than you're a dour little complainy-pants, who has no imagination for anything other than to dream up dystopian doomsday scenarios....And completely unimaginative ones at that.

Sheesh...At least Mad Max and Terminator movies could keep people entertained for an hour and a half or so.

entertaining the brain dead for hours is your job.

I am merely imparting basic truth that anybody with a brain can grok.

There are not enough resources on earth to support an ever expanding population and their insatiable needs/wants.

WORD!

And there's not enough hydrogen in the sun to convert into helium forever, either.

That basic truth doesn't mean that the sun is going to go nova next week.

 

[loosecannon]

I admit nothing other than you're a dour little complainy-pants, who has no imagination for anything other than to dream up dystopian doomsday scenarios....And completely unimaginative ones at that.

Sheesh...At least Mad Max and Terminator movies could keep people entertained for an hour and a half or so.

entertaining the brain dead for hours is your job.

I am merely imparting basic truth that anybody with a brain can grok.

There are not enough resources on earth to support an ever expanding population and their insatiable needs/wants.

WORD!

And there's not enough hydrogen in the sun to convert into helium forever, either.

That basic truth doesn't mean that the sun is going to go nova next week.

No, but if we don't recovery that hydrogen to helium energy release and convert it into work here on earth your point is vacuous.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Oddball]

Eeegads.

 

[snjmom]

I'll bite.


Dear Concerned Constituent,

I appreciate your input into the legislative process and want you to know that anonymous internet posters have always had my support. You ask what can your Congress do in the event that, for the foreseeable future, growth is going to be scare. Let me lay out my five point plan for you.

1. Take a tip from China. If a commie can grow a free market, the old US of A oughta be able to come up with a one child policy. If you join in a group marriage with a non-producing gay couple, you get two. Free tubal ligations and vasectomies, with the ace in the hole of introducing birth control into the drinking water.

2. If we are going to go into debt, lets get something for it. I want to see every semi-possible virtuoso engineering feat possible. Lets get geosynched microwave relay stations harvesting just outside of the exosphere (doubling as a shield for planetary cooling), mine the thermosphere, harvest the vast energies of ocean and core. We have the tech now to harvest the asteroid belt if we had the long-term mindset.

3. I will pledge to make it your patriotic duty to be as self-sustaining as possible. Window-farming, passive house construction standards, bio-diesel and electric transportation, a victory farm in every back yard.

4. Open season in human genome engineering. We'll put the labs on the space stations in case something goes horribly wrong.

5. Kill a shitload of foreigners. If we can replicate the one-two punch of HIV and civil conflict in Africa across the ME and Asia, we can knock out some of the resource competition.

As always, I remain your humble public servant.

Congressperson,


snjmom