Where you going to run to?

Otherwise known as the Dark Ages. h34r:

 

Yikes, what a scary world some of you are living in.
Cormac McCarthy's book "The Road" was incredibly depressing, I can't recommend it to anyone for entertainment, or as an outlook into our future.

A couple of points though, I believe the US became a net importer of food back in 2005, about the same time as China and India interestingly enough. Increased oil and energy prices make large US farms even less economic and increase the pressure to produce for biofuel rather than food. Expect US food imports (and prices) to increase.

New economic pressures will result in new energy and primary producer solutions, but will be accompanied by the need for some significant social changes. I think these changes will result in a lot of anger when US citizens realise the growing chasm between what they can afford and what they think they are entitled to.

The level of anger is already unpleasant for some of us. I left (didn't run) over a dozen years ago, after about a decade of thinking about it. So, to my mind, the challenge is not one of dealing with changed circumstances (circumstances always change). The challenge is to adapt to change with some dignity and civility. Thinking about redistribution of resources through force of arms, or "post-civilisation" scenarios doesn't really fit the bill.

Good luck with that, but stay put.

 

One might look to the French Revolution as an example. I believe part of the problem might have been the availability and price of bread.

Here is a link French Revolution

 

Food Shortages Drive Global Prices to Record Highs : TreeHugger
"In Sudan, the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP), the organization responsible for supplying grain to two million people in Darfur refugee camps, is facing a difficult mission to say the least. During the first three months of this year, 56 grain-laden trucks were hijacked. Thus far, only 20 of the trucks have been recovered and some 24 drivers are still unaccounted for. This threat to U.N.-supplied food to the Darfur camps has reduced the flow of food into the region by half, raising the specter of starvation if supply lines cannot be secured."

Here are more examples.
April 16, 2008: WORLD FACING HUGE NEW CHALLENGE ON FOOD FRONT - DATA

 

Our food production and distribution is heavily reliant on petroleum products (fertilizers, pesticides, transport, etc). As these become more expensive and less available, we will loose our ability to keep up with the current rate of production. It takes about 7.3 units of (primarily) fossil energy to produce one unit of food energy in the U.S. food system. This is simply unsustainable in a post-carbon world.

Add to that a population that continues to grow exponentially, and you can see where we're headed.

 

That's largely the result of immigration these days. If you account for immigration the US has a growth curve similar to Western Europe. The the growth is due to a relocation of people that could be put in check by a variety of mechanisms.

 

No matter. We have 2 problems working against each other... peak energy, and population increase. Solve one and you still have the other. We're solving neither at the moment.

 

Oh, they'll solve each just fine if left alone....

 

We may not like they way they solve themselves.

Depending on how things go...the U.S. may see a reduction in immigration. Their may even be an exodus. When we're no longer the breadbasket of the world and no longer offer a "better life", immigrants will migrate somewhere else that does.

The U.S. needs to look at....what happens when it gets really bad. Because....who leaves first? Those that can afford to (taking their money with them) and the highly educated that can see it coming long before the average person starts to pay attention (brain drain).

 

But where will they run to?

 

G

You know it bugs me when you talk behind my back. Just kidding

You are entirely correct. I may have left a bit on the early side - the 1997-1998 timeframe - but just the difference in exchange rate I cleaned up.

Now that the US dollar and Cdn dollar are at or very near Par, I can see this was the correct decision. Of course, the more hard core folks out there will call me a traitor, a backstabber, etc. Well, tough, deal with it. It's human nature to look out for yourself.

I also get a chuckle when somebody brings up the Patriotism bit. I've done my service, so that arguement goes nowhere with me. There is a huge difference between being Proud and being Blind.

What I find disturbing - and very disappointing - is the polarization in US society. It seems no matter what the issue, it suddenlyturns into a pissing contest between Left and Right, This and That, With Us or Against Us, etc

Despite having differences, sometimes deeply burning problems, why do most other Western nations at least try to get along? Consider here in Canada: natives, anglophones, francophones, etc, would have erupted into a full-scale civil war by now, if Canada would have followed the same polarized approach the US is now engaged in

Quite frankly, it will very soon become a matter of survival - literally - for Americans to shake hands, forget all this bulls***, learn to get along, and figure out solutions to very serious and real problems. For example, very recently Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a historic official public apology to Native Americans, due to the Residential School mess.

Residential Schools was actually a policy of forcibly removing children from their families, and forcing them to abandon traditional beliefs and culture/language. Naturally, there was sexual abuse, deplorable living conditions, etc etc.

Back to the topic: in most cases you're better off to dig in and stay put. If the s*** really hit the fan, I doubt any area "better off" would want or allow a sudden influx of desparate refugees.

j

 

I think when the economy tanks, a lot of immigrants would return back home. They came here for a better life because of our opportunities for people willing to work. When the opportunities are fewer than those they knew back home, there will be a reverse migration. Other than a few jetsetters, I think most moneyed people will stay right here, in secure neighborhoods scattered throughout the U.S. Some might retire or relocate in Mexico or somewhere (or Winnipeg !?!).

In retrospect, reading these posts, I tend to agree that the violent mobs of gun-wielding starving people won't be that wide-spread. That would be a last act of total desperation only caused by a sheer cliff in oil production. There won't be a cliff in the post peak-oil world, it's a bell curve, maybe even a flattened bell curve. When peak-oil is clearly evident, we'll go after coal and tar sands and OCS and ANWR without regard to environmental cost (which is why it might be better to set up the rules for extraction in those areas now or at least soonish).

There could definitely be refugees/the homeless (a la soup lines of the Depression). Money for that has to come from somewhere. The DoD has a choice - help out in the U.S. for logistics and security (like the National Guard), scale back entirely, or try to secure more oil by force. After the Iraq War, the last option won't be likely for at least another ten years.

My "safe valley" in Montana is more of a Walter Mitty-type mental exercise than anything I think will actually be implemented.

There might be a couple attacks on feedlots or ethanol plants, if they are seen to be wasting food (feedlots take 50% of our corn supply, but ethanol at 20% gets the bad rap currently). But mostly I think it will be non-violent market forces that will drive things. It won't be pretty, but it won't be the end of civilization. My most serious worry is how will I be able to keep the house if I lose my job, not how to survive on berries and bunnies (although I'm pretty sure I could outlive most others at that). A smaller population would definitely help almost all aspects of a post-cheap-oil life.

(Side note - humans aren't entirely to blame for the loss of many large mammals like the mastadons - why did yaks and caribou survive but saber-tooth tigers did not? I think a caribou is easier to hunt than a tiger. And why did mammoths/mastodons die out in Europe at the same time as North America? Latest evidence suggests climate change was the big factor and humans perhaps applied the coup-de-grace).

 

Honestly, I agree with person who said we (Left and Right) need to work together to solve our problems. Originaly I was under the impression we were developing ethanol to replace MTBE and for what ever reason CA didn't want the ethanol because they didn't want to reduce crop land for this purpose. Wasn't as profitable as making MTBE.

In my opion, (I know it's not backed by scientific data) if we are going to have to run for any reason, and it won't be because of Peak Demand. It would be a mass exodus from chem, bio, nuke dirt bomb or like. Some one else posted somer where, EMP weapon delivered by Iran. In that case, people will come together in a mutual cause and take care of each other.

I think most Americans can agree to disagree and even fight once in a while, but when the chips are down we will come to each others aid.

Not to get off track, a month back an intoxicated motorist turned around on interstate and headed back south and had a head on. Just so happened, their was a Dr. hit by flying debris, Nurse, EMT and us, on the site with in seconds of the wreck. No one said a thing but every one sprung into action. My Prius was the triage, we had 2 from the accident that could move on their own. Dr. nurse and EMT took the man thrown from his vehicle, I went up th eroad to check on SUV and he was pinned, found perscription pain killers and booze - looked in vehicle for name and gave to HWY patrol when they arrived, helped with other odds and ends up the road. Some of us have military training and know what to do in certain circumstances, I hope you get the point.

 

The thing that make this thread interesting is that everyone is aware that something is going to happen. It really is a worthwile exercise to try and figure out the deep interconnected aspects that all of us share whether we like them or not. Starvation does not bother me, nor does a severe economic downturn. How everyone treats their neighbor does.

One thing not mentioned is if would be possible to relocate in a severe economic downturn. (Sort of an assumption not addressed, but key to know.) For example, could immigrants obtain the transportation to return in this situation....or would the hobo camps of the great depression be the result?

There are two standards of living. The first standard is how you treat people and how you are treated. This standard is independent of economics and will determine how well we handle the reduction of oil. The second standard of living is the standard of luxury that is so addicting. This is actually a mental state that can be replaced with the correct standard of living. I really think that the first standard will win out in the coming years.....but with lots of education needed. I would also point out that politics has nothing to do with the first standand and is only concerned with the second.

 

FL, I think you have a great point. Relocation would be tough at the onset. I worked on a railroad back in the early 80's and the gumshoes didn't allow free riders. We found a couple of people on our engines at various times (usually at night) and they where clean and had reasonable stories, ie one, no money for long trip and relative was ill. One of us usually stayed on the engine with the person or persons. The conductor usually made the call.

I have known people to break down and walk to a truck stop and get rides.

Camps could crop up around areas that switch directions ect. location, location, location.

As for the first standard, I believe it has to be insilled or ingrained when one is young, but under certain circumstances could be learned if you where older and didn't have a chip on your shoulder or an axe to grind.

As for your second standard couldn't agree more. Do more with less, learn new ways of coping with out government mandated issues. We the people, for the people has gone by the way side and been replaced with the what's in it for me. I think I would refer to this as replacement of democracy with capitialism.

Good food for thought!

 

Oh hell, you see that right now in a lot of third world nations. The wealthy congregate in gated communities, heavily armored and armed, and anytime they venture out - usually in a Level 3+ armored SUV - it's in a small convoy, all armed

Sort of like the Green Zone approach now used in Baghdad. Or the camps set up in certain oil rich nations to protect foreign - "white" - engineers.

It's kind of creepy to be in such a place. You know - and are also WARNED - that if you ventured too far into the "real" country you'd be in very deep s***

I think the most likely scenario would be people hunkering down, trying to ride out whatever has happened. The truly wealthy already have their survival spot picked out and have laid supplies

 

I wish I could have your optimism, but I do not.

 

It's funny you should put it that way. I too have been overseas and heard the same.

I took the son to a camp this month in minnesota, a couple of the dads where talking about some pretty rich, powerful people and the 20-30 mil shacks they had or were building! It kind of makes you wonder?

But they can't hold off every one alone, and when peoples families come into play things change.

Unless you hire a bunch of single mercenaries. You still have to deal with the locals. And whose to say some of these wouldn't be taken over from the inside out.

 

Would you help someone in need? If so, then I have optimism.