Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Keyasa wrote:In fifty years time, no one will care. Possibly less time, if the growing evidence of Peak Oil reaches its almost certain conclusion. Left wing, right wing, labour, conservative, Obama, Iraq, Afghanistan, racism, passive smoking, drug cartels- none of these things will matter. Then, the only thing that will matter is 7 or 8 billion people trying to survive when the lights go out when less than 1% know how to do it.

yeh...then I suppose Ray Mears will rule all.

The Dreadnote wrote:It's not just a matter of knowing how to survive. That lifestyle is all well and good when there's only a few thousand people around, but it cannot sustain today's populations. Even if we were all expert woodsmen.

Idealism will only get you so far.

Ah yes, I didn't wish to move onto the more unpalatable thought process that anarcho-primitivism leads to... The basic premise is, indeed, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle cannot be sustained by the current world popualtion. In fact, something like 6 billion people have to be phased out. This won't come about through any "final solution" type scenario but simply through the fact that we are devouring the world's resources at an unsustainable rate, and civilisation will naturally be redressed by mother nature herself Wind turbines are all well and good but they won't be able to air freight our wine from italy anytime soon

The Unabomber had a much more eloquent way of putting it than I ever could. His manifesto is viewable from many online sources.

In all seriousness the only reason we are dependant on oil is because of the power the distributers of said oil have, keeping other ergy soruces down and what have you. Put the same amount of money we do into oil into finding another viable energy source and we'd have it by tomorow lunchtime.

The chances of running out of power in a capatalist world of corporate greed is almost zilch.

I don't wish to divert the thread anyway, I may start a fresh one for other like-minded peak-oil nutters

Yeh, cause I'm a "peak oil nutter"

Are there any 3rd parties in America?
A vote for them is still better than no vote at all.

There are third parties, but voting for them is the same as not voting most of the time.

The current republicans were once a third party, I don't see the green party doing that though.


Complain all you want about the government, its your right to do so, if you don't like it become an anarchist. But isn't the UK classified as a constitutional monarchy? I know many people think that we have democracies but the truth of the matter is that they are republics. In democracy your voice truly matters in terms of voting(popular vote) whereas republics fit the electoral college.

Personally I like laughing at people who say they are third party and act all elite, don't they know that if they had good ideas the major parties would adopt them as their own? Silly people, politics is just like hollywood.

whatwhat wrote:In all seriousness the only reason we are dependant on oil is because of the power the distributers of said oil have, keeping other ergy soruces down and what have you. Put the same amount of money we do into oil into finding another viable energy source and we'd have it by tomorow lunchtime.

Are you talking about electricity or cars here? Electricity nearly always comes coal, natural gas, nuclear fission. Cars use gasoline, but why would you think it's the "oil barons" forcing that to be so? Why would these influence wielding juggernauts allow E85 to get the funding it does (in America, at least)?

Oil is used because it's cheaper and easier for cars to use gasoline than switch to another form of energy storage. Simple as that. When gasoline becomes more expensive, that will change, and it will become more expensive as supplies decrease.

Also, you're fooling yourself if you think there's an energy source being kept under wraps that can compete with coal. "Renewable" sources aren't cost-efficient, especially for developing countries. That's the reason they aren't competing with coal now. Even future advancements have a long ways to go in that regard. Nuclear power is widely feared. Something else will take coal's place, but there's nothing that equals it now.

The chances of running out of power in a capatalist world of corporate greed is almost zilch.

Agreed.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:In all seriousness the only reason we are dependant on oil is because of the power the distributers of said oil have, keeping other ergy soruces down and what have you. Put the same amount of money we do into oil into finding another viable energy source and we'd have it by tomorow lunchtime.

Are you talking about electricity or cars here? Electricity nearly always comes coal, natural gas, nuclear fission. Cars use gasoline, but why would you think it's the "oil barons" forcing that to be so? Why would these influence wielding juggernauts allow E85 to get the funding it does (in America, at least)?

Oil is used because it's cheaper and easier for cars to use gasoline than switch to another form of energy storage. Simple as that. When gasoline becomes more expensive, that will change, and it will become more expensive as supplies decrease.

Also, you're fooling yourself if you think there's an energy source being kept under wraps that can compete with coal. "Renewable" sources aren't cost-efficient, especially for developing countries. That's the reason they aren't competing with coal now. Even future advancements have a long ways to go in that regard. Nuclear power is widely feared. Something else will take coal's place, but there's nothing that equals it now.

I could give you a long list of cases where oil companies have bought out alternative energy companies and that's just the cases that are in the mainstream. In the case of cars I admit it's slowly starting to shift now but until this decade we didn't see any decent movement to make electric cars, and it was entirely possible.

Do you really think in a capitalist environment oil and mining companies are gong to give no competition to the very real threat for much more attractive energy sources. No they haven't. It's starting to shift now that governments are reacting to the demands for a move in that direction. But fact is mining and oil has held the development and research of better fuel back for a long time.

As i said i would guess if the money in oil and mining was put into finding that new source of energy, I would imagine it wouldn't take them long to find it. Old Mo in Dubai didn't build himself a tree shaped island from pocket money you know.

whatwhat wrote:I could give you a long list of cases where oil companies have bought out alternative energy companies and that's just the cases that are in the mainstream. In the case of cars I admit it's slowly starting to shift now but until this decade we didn't see any decent movement to make electric cars, and it was entirely possible.

Do you really think in a capitalist environment oil and mining companies are gong to give no competition to the very real threat for much more attractive energy sources. No they haven't. It's starting to shift now that governments are reacting to the demands for a move in that direction. But fact is mining and oil has held the development and research of better fuel back for a long time.

So corporations compete with each other? That's nothing new. Every company will try and buy out what it sees as a competition. If that's all you were saying about oil companies, I apologize for having jumped on you, but it's just not that big of a deal. They're not hiring goons to force people to give up their new solar panels. If a small company is bought out it's usually because they wanted more money or they were unsuccessful.

New technologies aren't researched because it isn't profitable to do so. Why isn't it profitable? Because other energy sources aren't as good. They don't produce as much energy for the cost, or they certainly didn't until now. Nuclear being the exception, as that was heavily regulated by the government because of perceived danger. Coal power is cheaper than solar power, not because of some conspiracy to keep solar power down, but because it's simply a more efficient source of energy. The fact that you talk about the "research" that could be done only reinforces this. Research would need to be done to improve it, because it's not as good as it is.

Electric cars never caught on because they were generally inferior to gasoline powered cars, and people are naturally resistant to change.

Energy from sources other than fossil fuels will come when coal becomes too expensive due to paying for the damage done by sulfur and carbon dioxide (whether directly or indirectly). Cars that don't run on gasoline will come when the dwindling oil supply makes gasoline too expensive.

As i said i would guess if the money in oil and mining was put into finding that new source of energy, I would imagine it wouldn't take them long to find it. Old Mo in Dubai didn't build himself a tree shaped island from pocket money you know.

And how would energy be generated in the mean time? You're comparing the production of energy with research into the production of energy, which makes no sense. Of course drilling for oil and using it to power cars won't get you technological advancements, that's not what the purpose of it is.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I could give you a long list of cases where oil companies have bought out alternative energy companies and that's just the cases that are in the mainstream. In the case of cars I admit it's slowly starting to shift now but until this decade we didn't see any decent movement to make electric cars, and it was entirely possible.

Do you really think in a capitalist environment oil and mining companies are gong to give no competition to the very real threat for much more attractive energy sources. No they haven't. It's starting to shift now that governments are reacting to the demands for a move in that direction. But fact is mining and oil has held the development and research of better fuel back for a long time.

So corporations compete with each other? That's nothing new. Every company will try and buy out what it sees as a competition. If that's all you were saying about oil companies, I apologize for having jumped on you, but it's just not that big of a deal. They're not hiring goons to force people to give up their new solar panels. If a small company is bought out it's usually because they wanted more money or they were unsuccessful.

New technologies aren't researched because it isn't profitable to do so. Why isn't it profitable? Because other energy sources aren't as good. They don't produce as much energy for the cost, or they certainly didn't until now. Nuclear being the exception, as that was heavily regulated by the government because of perceived danger. Coal power is cheaper than solar power, not because of some conspiracy to keep solar power down, but because it's simply a more efficient source of energy. The fact that you talk about the "research" that could be done only reinforces this. Research would need to be done to improve it, because it's not as good as it is.

Electric cars never caught on because they were generally inferior to gasoline powered cars, and people are naturally resistant to change.

Energy from sources other than fossil fuels will come when coal becomes too expensive due to paying for the damage done by sulfur and carbon dioxide (whether directly or indirectly). Cars that don't run on gasoline will come when the dwindling oil supply makes gasoline too expensive.

As i said i would guess if the money in oil and mining was put into finding that new source of energy, I would imagine it wouldn't take them long to find it. Old Mo in Dubai didn't build himself a tree shaped island from pocket money you know.

And how would energy be generated in the mean time? You're comparing the production of energy with research into the production of energy, which makes no sense. Of course drilling for oil and using it to power cars won't get you technological advancements, that's not what the purpose of it is.

Ah, we're probably on the same page then.

We're not going to have some sort of oil peak economic collapse, something else will take it's place.

Sorry for getting too hyper on you, I guess.

This thread has degenerated rapidly. I will try and bring it bakc on track.

Third parties in America do exist, they are incredibly small, hvae pretty much no influence=no political backing. There are the Independants, libertarians, Neo-Nazis, etc. paries that have views that most people would frown upon.

Pouint is: Don't vote. You voice doesn't matter, it never will, as no nation is a democracy. Life sucks. get used to it.

While I find this topic also very interesting, you might wanna shift this to a new thread. After all, this is a rant-thread about politics in general.

Well hurrah! Michael Martin's successor as speaker of the House of Commons has been chosen.

This time, it's a Tory. But apparently, many Tories are not happy with his appointment. Something to do with him not being enough of a right wing arsehole for them. So what do we do when a democratic vote doesn't go in your favour? Thats right kids! You throw a huff and threaten to turf them out at the earliest opportunity.

Can someone please pay me to attend Parliament with a hitting stick, so I can tonk MPs on the head when they are being twatty? They are meant to be running the country!

GAH!

Technically your vote does count. Its just that when you vote it determines how the state's delegates are going to vote. They could go against the popular vote, but there are laws against that. In some states its winner takes all and in some you can have splits.

Where I live its winner takes all, so if candidate A has 55% and candidate B has 44% then candidate A has all of the delegates votes.

In some states if candidate A has 55% and candidate B has 44% then candidat A may get 2 delegates while candidate B gets 1 delegate.

Stop whining about your vote not counting, it counts towards determining how the delegates for your state vote. If you don't vote then don't complain, afterall you did nothing to even try to change the results.

halonachos wrote: If you don't vote then don't complain, afterall you did nothing to even try to change the results.

QFT.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So what do we do when a democratic vote doesn't go in your favour? Thats right kids! You throw a huff and threaten to turf them out at the earliest opportunity.

I thought you demanded a recount?

You're supposed to see what happens, and if things start happening that you don't like you complain. If it gets really bad you try to get them impeached.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So what do we do when a democratic vote doesn't go in your favour? Thats right kids! You throw a huff and threaten to turf them out at the earliest opportunity.

I thought you demanded a recount?

No, you let the Supreme Court hand it to you outside of any related laws or regulations.