Slashdot Mirror

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
"Nunez descends into the valley and finds an unusual village with windowless houses and a network of paths, all bordered by curbs. Upon discovering that everyone is blind, Nunez begins reciting to himself the refrain, "In the Country of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King". He realises that he can teach and rule them, but the villagers have no concept of sight, and do not understand his attempts to explain this fifth sense to them. Frustrated, Nunez becomes angry, but the villagers calm him, and he reluctantly submits to their way of life, because returning to the outside world seems impossible.
Nunez is assigned to work for a villager named Yacob. He becomes attracted to Yacob's youngest daughter, Medina-Sarote. Nunez and Medina-Sarote soon fall in love with one another, and having won her confidence, Nunez slowly starts trying to explain sight to her. Medina-Sarote, however, simply dismisses it as his imagination. When Nunez asks for her hand in marriage, he is turned down by the village elders on account of his "unstable" obsession with "sight". The village doctor suggests that Nunez's eyes be removed, claiming that they are diseased and are affecting his brain. Nunez reluctantly consents to the operation because of his love for Medina-Sarote. However, at sunrise on the day of the operation, while all the villagers are asleep, Nunez, the failed King of the Blind, sets off for the mountains (without provisions or equipment), hoping to find a passage to the outside world, and escape the valley."

While I loved the cartoon version of "A Connectuct Yankeee in King Arthur's Court", plus similar stories ("Lest Darkness Fall" etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and even "Coneheads"), in practice, it seems that being significantly different in cultural outlook from a backwards society can be a huge handicap leading to isolation (e.g. "Stranger in a Strange Land" or the religious story Doug Adams called being nailed to a tree 2000 years ago for suggesting people might try being nice to each other).

Another take on all that:
http://www.fromthewilderness.c...
"Start building your lifeboats where you are now. I can see that the lessons I have learned here are important whether you arethinking of moving from city to countryside, state to state, or nation to nation. Whatever shortcomings you may think exist where you live are far outnumbered by the advantages you have where you are a part of an existing ecosystem that you know and which knows you. If the time comes when it is necessary to leave that community you will be better off moving with your tribe rather than moving alone."

What did brilliance in the end get Tesla? Or Semmelweis? Or Shelton? Or Gatto? or CH Douglas? Or Charles Fourier? Or even Galileo? Or Dee Hock founder of Visa and the Chaordic Commons or Michael Philips founder of MasterCard? Or Theodore Sturgeon and "The Skills of Xanadu"? Or Doug Engelbart and "The Mother of All Demos" and the mouse? Or even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls and others with the increasingly forgotten-but-continually-badly-re-invented Smalltalk (e.g. Ruby & Java & many others)? See on Kay in particular:
https://www.google.com/search?...

How many of them have most people even heard of? Yet they provided many of the better ideas that shape our lives today. There are many other mostly forgotten people we could add to that list, even if there may be some small subgroup of fans at some point in time. And the people I list are even on the upper end of the scale as at least having been recognized as mostly ignored or forgotten despite being brilliant, unlike legions of other people who have contributed to society such as those who bred potatoes or apples or r

Funny that you should say that, see article:

Eating Fossil Fuels

Quote: "In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American"

 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
 19% for the operation of field machinery
 16% for transportation
 13% for irrigation ...etc

The "lying about it" link comes from a website run by an anti-american consipracy theorist who writes nonsense like this

Not to bash Venezuela, which has many fine things about it, but also on this theme of what he is getting himself into.

Not exactly the same, but from someone who tried to gain asylum in Venezuela and ended up leaving including due to aspects of culture shock:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml
"The Bolivarian Revolution and Venezuelan culture inherently knows that it cannot make too many exceptions to the rule that diversity must protect itself or else the rule will have no meaning. Thatâ(TM)s exactly what I was asking it to do (though I didnâ(TM)t know it) when I came here. I am not just one migrating gringo. Mike Ruppert could not be assimilated without changing something here: the Tao of politics.
That is why, after 15 weeks of waiting, after only one interview, a formal petition and a lot of pressure from influential Americans and Venezuelan-Americans (some with direct government connections) I have not heard a word on my request for political asylum. Venezuelans are inherently suspicious, let alone of a blond gringo who is an ex-policeman who came from a US intelligence family. It is possible that within the massive and glacially slow bureaucracy, some who are not loyal to Chavez have buried my request under a pile of papers. In Latin America things take much longer and I can see now that the waiting process, never guaranteed to be successful, is part of a natural selection. ...
The important distinctions about adaptivity are not racial at all. US citizens come in all colors. American culture is the water they have swum in since birth. A native US citizen of Latin descent who did not (or even did) speak Spanish would probably feel almost as out of place here as I do. They would look the same but not feel the same. And when it came time to deal collectively with a rapidly changing world, a world in turmoil, a native-born Americanâ(TM)s inbred decades of âoeinstinctiveâ survival skills might not harmonize with the skills used by those around him. ...
Start building your lifeboats where you are now. I can see that the lessons I have learned here are important whether you are thinking of moving from city to countryside, state to state, or nation to nation. Whatever shortcomings you may think exist where you live are far outnumbered by the advantages you have where you are a part of an existing ecosystem that you know and which knows you.
If the time comes when it is necessary to leave that community you will be better off moving with your tribe rather than moving alone. ..."

And:
https://www.osac.gov/Pages/ContentReportDetails.aspx?cid=13038
"The U.S. Department of State rates the criminal threat level for Caracas as CRITICAL. In 2010, Caracas became the deadliest capital in the world with the highest murder rate in the world, averaging one murder every hour. Much of Caracasâ(TM)s crime and violence can be attributed to mobile street gangs and organized crime groups. Caracas continues to be notorious for the brazenness of high-profile, violent crimes such as murder, robberies, and kidnappings. Armed assaults and robberies continue to be a part of everyday life. Every Caracas neighborhood is susceptible to crime. Reports of armed robberies occur regularly, day and night, and include the generally affluent residential sections of Chacao, Baruta, and El Hatillo, where host government, business leaders, and diplomats reside. Studies and reports cite a variety of reasons for the critically high and constant level of violent criminal activity in Caracas including: a sense that criminals will not be penalized; poorly paid and often corrupt police; an inefficient politicized judiciary; a violent and overcrowded prison system; overworked prosecutors; and the

Some North Koreans have escaped that bubble too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_defectors

What does that prove? Getting beyond a pervasive cultural way of thinking is also something other than learning a few tidbits of information... And most ex-pats will never have the quality of life abroad that native born citizens will in there host countries (with natives embedded in family and community and stories for generations, and with expats facing security risks if anti-Americanism rises). An extreme example of that (Michael Ruppert):
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml

Basically echoes your points:
    http://www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/themainmessage.htm
""If You Leave Home Without A Place To Go, You Are a Refugee". 'Bug Out Bags' and 'Heading For The Hills To Live Off The Land' are popular ideas that don't work... We have Many articles about Why it doesn't work, but forget "Hunting and trapping and 'living in Remote Areas'". There is no such thing as "Remote areas" in the Lower 48 states... Africa, Asia, the Steps of Russia, etc, are Truly remote areas, and they were Always hit by waves of smallpox and other plagues carried only by humans! Nothing in the Lower 48 is "really remote", it's a false sense of security if that's what you are depending on. "Living in the Country in a small self-sustaining community is better".. but it's not the "End all Answer". It's better than living in the city.. but it's not a protection by itself, it simply gives you an edge If You Prepare Further. Remember, when city people get scared, they blindly "Head for the country".. right to where You are living. Is the cost of living in the country worth the little added extra protection? Only you can decide that.. personally I simply prefer Not living in crowded places, but at the same time, I know my little country town may Fill Up with people fleeing the cities, and I have prepared for that. "

LIving in the Adirondacks, myself. :-) But that is mostly as land was cheap (no one likes biting blackfiles and lots of snow and ice) and my wife likes living around forest.

But what will where I live be like with a million people from NYC coming here as a horde and shooting each other? The deer will also probably last about a week, if that... Then what?

See also, to echo your point:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml

Better to work towards a world where our infrastructure is resilient and our security focus is on being intrinsic and mutual.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Economic_Transformation

Are you lost sir?

The United States has the DEA enforcing it's domestic drug policy throughout the world.

Here in Canada:
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/3261.html

Abroad, Cocaine is tolerated and seen as a great resource in South America yet America is killing civilians to thwart a domestic problem?????? A problem that stems from lack of Education, Health care and Poverty

Missionary plane shot down in Peru: collateral damage in US "drug war
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/apr2001/peru-a24.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/peru_coverup.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/video-of-missionaries-bei_n_449074.html

DEA agents shoot innocent 14-year-old girl in the head, but deny any wrongdoing.
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2998.html

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/license-to-kill.html

DEA GO AWAY!!!
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/

Lets not forget Marc Emery a Canadian politician extradited because of his influence on the pro marijuana movement. He was extradited for selling seeds (which is legal in Canada) via mail to the U.S. unprecedented enforcement of American pollution on Canadian Sovereignty.

Thanks for the first hand report.

An alternative approach instead of censorship is to just put a heavy tax on certain media, because of the cost it may impose on society:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
"""
In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service. An advantageous impact is called an external benefit or positive externality, while a detrimental impact is called an external cost or negative externality. Producers and consumers in a market may either not bear all of the costs or not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors.
    In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would cause either too much or too little of the good to be produced or consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits, such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved.
"""

Media that contributes to social violence, or which displaces time that could be spent on learning better solutions to social conflicts, could be considered as creating a negative externality. More on this general issue, about the dilemma between helping kids work through developmental needs to move beyond violence versus sending a message about avoiding violent solutions:
    http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X

A violent media tax could be redistributed equally to everyone as a "basic income", or it could be used to fund other projects (including other media) that promote cooperation.
    http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
    http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

Here is another first hand report on someone from the US heading to Venezuela and then heading back to the USA, realizing they would never fit in for a variety of reasons (even as they admired aspects of the changes there):
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml

Sometimes you just have to make a choice between helping the larger society prosper versus turning inward and perhaps, by inaction, helping bring about the very catastrophe you are worried about.

But, from a "preparedness" perspective, working from pessimism, interesting reading:
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml
    http://www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/themainmessage.htm

Ideally, one can do both -- build strong local communities that are more self-reliant while at the same time developing ideas that help everyone. One issue with the Alpha Rubicon people is that they choose to keep most of what they learn to themselves, presumably to give themselves and edge in a catastrophe? Maybe there is a different reason? Ultimately, a competitive mindset may be what dooms us unless we can move beyond it:
    "No contest: the case against competition"
    http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

Alcoholic beverages are a CO2-storage. All the beer that's stored somewhere in pubs or your fridge or basement contains CO2, which, therefore, is temporarily out of the atmospheric CO2-cycle. It sort of takes the place of that other CO2-storage, which we're slowly emptying, namely oilfields and the likes. The more alcohol we drink, the more has to be in storage, the more CO2 is temporarily out of the loop. Just like with wooden houses, carbon bikeframes and the likes.

And, even better, since CO2 is used to pressurize taps for alcohol beverages, even more CO2 is out of the loop. The latter is even actually taken directly from the atmosphere!

Also, alcohol consumption lowers the average lifespan of humans, thereby making the problem - humanity - smaller;-)

But that's theory. Reality is a bit more painful; the amount of CO2 in alcohol is miniscule compared to the amount of CO2 that comes into the biosphere through the use of pesticides and fertilizer, which are mostly produced from natural gas. What you should understand, is that for everything you eat and drink, about TEN TIMES AS MUCH energy is needed to produce it than is contained within the food. Therefore, some people say, "we actually eat fossil fuels".

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

So the bottomline is: yes, alcoholic is killing our planet. But that's not due to the fermentation process, which does not bring NEW carbon into the cycle. Instead, it is due to the energy that's added when growing and transporting it, which basically comes from fossil fuels. The same goes for most other foods and drinks; for each calory you eat, ten calories of fossil fuel were used to produce it.

Possibly more interesting is that the fact that you ask this question shows your lack of understanding of the amount of CO2 that a simple car produces. There's about 50-60 gram of CO2 in a liter of beer. Using a liter of fuel in your car produces about 2500 grams of CO2. That's about 50 times as much. So, if you want to compensate for your beer consumption, just try to use 1 tank of fuel less a year; that'll give you enough CO2-credits to drink well over 20 beers each day, which should be more than enough:-)

Hey, thanks for no turning this into a flamefest :)

If you haven't run across this already, check out Dmitry Orlov's "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century". He's a Russian national ( I think ) who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union. He sees a lot of similarity between us and them ( He calls it the SU ( Soviet Union ) and the US ), and thinks that the US is in for a collapse. I think the psychological shock will be the biggest hurdle for the American people, but after that, he says the two big things are 1. have a small garden plot and 2. rely on your social networks. Ultimately, he ends on a very positive, hopeful note. Americans haven't been exposed to decades of hope-sapping communist work programs, and still believe in themselves, and believe they can 'make it' by hard work. I'm starting to believe that too!

The next few decades will be a fun, interesting time!

So why did you claim that it explains "dry wells refilling", and where is your source for the "everyone is taught this in Europe" claim you made in reply to the other poster?

It's FUD just like the anti-global warming FUD they have been peddling for the last 20yrs. Here is a random site that debunks the abiotic oil theory, there are many more out there.

And yes, a "-1 wrong" mod would come in handy, but for this kind of thing a "-1 bullshit" is more appropriate.

Oil, natural gas, and coal are all very different resources that are subject to very different constraints

"The current peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected". "Crop production now relies on fertilizers to replace soil nutrients, and therefore on the oil needed to mine, manufacture, and transport these fertilizers around the world." But that all ignores the fact that oil is used to transport food. Last I read, in the US on average food travels more than 2000 from the farm to your table. What's hard to understand about that?

Thanks for summing up the major problem with the Western world-view in a single sentence.

The government knows damn well that cannabis is not harmful; they don't care. Criminal hypocrisy is embedded into our government to the point that there's no way to end the drug war without ending the government with it (because of the truths that would be revealed). A perfect example is Afghanistan. Look at the numbers and tell me which government was really anti-poppy, the Taliban or the US gov's puppet regime. Under Karzai the heroin yields have never been higher.

It's all a scam. The DEA and local PDs put people in jail for decades for nonviolent drug offenses while the CIA takes a cut from drug smugglers in exchange for protection. Drug money is laundered through US businesses on Wall Street and elsewhere using CIA front companies. If you don't know about Iran-Contra, Barry Seal or Gary Webb I urge you to dig deeper. Things are not what they seem and ignorance of the crimes of traitors will slowly poison what's left of our republic.

Well, in a very real albeit indirect sense, the modern industrial human consumes petroleum-based hydrocarbons as food. A typical meal in the developed world had seven calories of fossil fuel-based energy (in the form of fertilizer, fuel for farm equipment, transportation, irrigation, pesticides, refrigeration, etc.) go into it for every calorie that the eater receives from it.

You mean this guy? He may be on to something, or it could just be another of his loony theories.

"The problem with climate models is that you only hear about the ones that give extreme results. There is no news value (or grant value for that matter) in reporting models that don't give extreme results."

"Extreme results" is probably an invalidate assumption. Scientists practice a lot of self censorship.
So much so, that the published IPCC reports are widely considered to be under estimates of the true effects.

The GW outcomes you haven't heard about are those which trigger an E.L.E. that mankind is unlikely to survive.
The scientific consensus is to curb CO2 emissions A.S.A.P. in order to reduce the probability of triggering an E.L.E.

"should be that the US has a 200-800 year supply of coal"

Check this out:

U.S coal reserves

Year | Supply of coal
---------------------
1868 | 10000 years
1904 | 1000 years
1988 | 300 years
2000 | 255 years

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_c oal_peak.html

2005 | 240 years
(Coal reserves 246,643 million tonnes, production 1028.1 million tonnes)

http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=684 2&contentId=7021390

Over time there has been a large amount of conspiracy "theory" regarding the prohbition of drugs resulting in the CIA direclty benefiting from the huge profit margins. There has been evidence and drug trafficing on several different contintents that has been directly linked to the CIA. I know that there have been several movies that have been made regarding this exact topic some based on fact others based on annocdotal evidence. There has also been a large amount of evidence supporting the CIA traffic drugs through LA at the expense of community housing projects etc. There is more information about the links here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America and http://www.narconews.com/ and http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ There are numerous links from American banks and the laundering of drug money. Especially through branches like banamex and Citi group. As long as drugs are illegal there will always be a government link to the incomes either directly via importing and dealing with the producers or simply by selling off goods that have been bought using 'dirty money' as long as those links remain there is no interest in the government in changing the drug policies even though many of the illegal drugs have no long term health benefits as is claimed in many government booklets/information pages. In fact many illegal drugs are being approved by the FDA for use in specialised treatment. One example of that is the use of MDMA to treat Post Traumatic stress disorder. As many people know different types of amphetamine have long been used for the treatment of common disorders like ADHD.

as in, you can't get (meaningful) quantities of hydrogen
out of the ground.

See also for example:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081803_h ydrogen_answers.html
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&st oryid=581

among many other reports of why the heralded hydrogen economy
has a place in the pantheon of the FSM and his noodly appendage.

Sorry; I must admit a little knowledge of (non-USA) geography is useful here. Add a little history for flavour.

There is the slight issue of natural gas & oil resources in the Caspian Sea, bordering on Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. A pipeline through Afghanistan is the shortest route to get that oil to more civilized, democracy-loving nations.

Efforts to revive the trans-Afghanistan pipeline began soon after the U.S. incursion into that country. The pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan was first discussed in the late-1990s, with a consortium led by Unocal pushing the project.

Hamed Karzai worked as a consultant for the huge US oil group Unocal, which had supported the Taleban movement and sought to construct a pipeline to transport oil and gas from the Islamic republics of Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. He is now president in Afghanistan.

Vice President Cheney was Chairman and Chief Executive of Dallas based Halliburton Corporation, the world's largest oil field services company with multi-billion dollar contracts with oil corporations including Chevron. Halliburton's global network of investments includes projects in politically volatile areas including the Caspian Sea region. Dick Cheney was instrumental in negotiating a Caspian Sea pipeline for Chevron. The Bush Administration declared war in Afghanistan, not necessarily to combat terrorism, but to make it possible for U.S. oil interests to construct gas and oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to Pakistani harbors on the Indian Ocean

From 1989 to 1992 National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron, and was its main expert on Kazakhstan.

Even Bush himself is rumoured to have some connections to oil... (though never very succesfully)

Indeed. The idea of 6 billion people living 'off the land' is a nightmare.

Right now, the North American died consumes 10 kcal of petroleum energy for each 1 kcal which we eat. Who pays the ultimate price of peak oil? Those currently living on $2 per day.

Before that, the exhaustion of coal was the fun thing to predict.
Coal for steel, electrical power and synfuels are growing markets. With that in mind, depletion of our coal resources is a serious concern. So lets see what the facts are.

Article: Years of reserves remaining is easy enough to calculate: one only need determine how many tons of coal remain in the ground (available from the EIA) and divide by the production for that year. If we look at the year 2000, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining. However, if we look at other years, we see something strange: there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, we use our coal more quickly and we see that the standard formulation of 'years remaining' is nearly meaningless.

Using the EIA's assumptions, coal will peak in 2060. However, The Annual Energy Outlook 2004 was published before it was widely accepted that U.S. gas production had peaked and that growth of LNG would be difficult. If we assume that U.S. gas consumption cannot grow beyond 2002 levels (2003 gas consumption was less than 2002) due to the North American gas production peak and limited LNG imports, then growth in electrical demand must be met by coal instead of gas. In this second scenario, coal is forecast to peak in 2053. The final scenario assumes that in addition to flat natural gas consumption, oil will peak in 2010 and synfuels will be produced from coal for use in vehicles. It is further assumed that these synfuels will be produced using the process currently employed by the Sasol Company in South Africa. While this is a rather inefficient process, it has been proven at large scales over many years. In this scenario, coal is forecast to peak in 2035.

(As Coke and energy from oil becomes unavailable) Recent interviews with coal and rail companies have revealed that metallurgical coal demand in the Spring of 2004 has been unexpectedly high. If industrial coal demand does increase, this will also cause coal to peak at an earlier date.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_c oal_peak.html

[QUOTE]Electrical heating, electrical rail road engines, electrical cars would've made far more economic sense if electricity was as cheap and abundant as nuclear power can make it.[/QUOTE]

Even with the cheapest cents per watt hour, nuclear still isn't competitive with modern coal plants. You haven't offered anything that would suggest that we should be able to get cheap energy from nuclear (in the US).

[QUOTE]That's the point. Greenpeace's et al.'s passionate protests make the nuclear power's cost much higher financially. [/QUOTE]

While lawsuits from 'green' organizations make plant construction more costly (due to delays), I seriously doubt they are a significant factor.

[QUOTE]Even worse -- politically it was prohibitively expensive for decades.[/QUOTE]

They still recieved substantial government funding for research in reducing costs, etc. If it isn't economically cost effective, what does it matter the political costs?

[QUOTE]Now that Chinese (no more willing to depend on foreign fuel suppliers, than us) are about to build dozens of new nuclear plants (Toshiba's main motivation for this purchase), the world is suddenly reconsidering...[/QUOTE]

Chinas interest in nuclear is because for them coal has recently become increasingly more expensive and in short supply, whereas nuclear has had a steadily dropping price. If your coal is expensive then nuclear becomes much more attractive. If nuclear continues to drop in price it also becomes more attractive.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/124955.htm

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030205_w orld_stories.shtml

[QUOTE]I wonder, then, why do Chinese plan to build dozens of nuclear plants by 2020? Do they know something, you don't?[/QUOTE]

No, they know something that you don't - namely that they are having difficulty meeting demand for their coal production needs, (see above) which is causing a steady and strong increase in coal prices. Also that the cost of nuclear power has been steadily decreasing. Given the huge projected energy demand that China faces, and the serious liklihood of being unable to meet demand with coal (and already they are close to maximum energy available for hydroelectric) limits them to nuclear energy.

Also a large portion of the initial capital outlay for building a nuclear powerplant is the labor required. Chinas labor costs are quite a bit cheaper than those of the US. Also as a government it is able to commission a large number of plants simultaneously giving a great deal of economy of scale.

Thus for China to try and meet a larger percentage of its energy needs by 2020 makes quite a bit of sense.

Also since China is a large exporter of coal as well as consumer they're reduced export capacity due to local consumption also drives up foreign prices. Leading to a knock on impact on price for other countries and thus an increased interest in nuclear.

For other countries such as the US that have large coal reserves, the greatly improved nuclear power plant designs that have come out over the past three years finally bring down the capital costs to where they are more reasonable. Of course the US has large reserves of coal with no threat of shortages - however there are not good reserves of low sulfur coal which is desirable to reduce acid rain (and while regular sulphur content coal can be processed to low sulphur it does increase the cost...).

LetterRip

A look at a small table of energy return on energy invested figures gives ethanol from corn a 1.3, ethanol from sugarcane something like 0.8 to 1.7 (meaning it could possibly be a net energy loser!), and ethanol from corn residues 0.7 to 1.8. Compare that with petroleum's EROEI, which is today something of the order of 23, and had once been higher than 100. Even at the maximum efficiency level, it would probably take dedicating all of the arable land in the United States to grow corn for conversion to ethanol to allow business as usual. Also, mechanized farming techniques are so heavily dependent on petroleum-based (and natural gas based) fertilizers and pesticides. Here's a good article on how to properly evaluate these schemes for alternative energy, and ethanol doesn't fare very well.

No, the only real solution to the energy crisis is to abandon the grossly wasteful American way of life, and take steps towards serious conservation efforts.

About 43% of our electical power in the United States comes from coal power plants.

But coal has several problems. First, there are the obvious environmental issues... although I doubt many people will care about those once oil hits $150 a barrel. (Environmental issues have a tendancy to take the back burner when people can't afford to heat their homes.)

The second problem is that while coal is certainly more plentiful then natural gas and oil, it too is a limited natural resource. Coal production could peak as early as 2035.

As far as oil sands, it is just too expensive to produce sweet crude from oil sands. By too expensive I mean more $100 a barrel. Sure, as peak oil makes itself more clear oil sands may indeed become a viable alternative, but only viable insofar as cheap will be redefined. The economy will still collapse and wars will still be fought over the remaining "cheap" oil supplies. Our current way of life is simply not sustainable.

One hope I do have is for oil shale. Shell has come up with some new techniques to extract sweet crude from oil shale at a cost of about $30 a barrel! This would be absolutely fantastic and would give us at least another 30 years to deal with peak oil... not to mention the fact that the United States has the world's largest deposits of oil shale and it would give us a MASSIVE edge in the global conflicts that are likely to arise over the next few decades regarding oil.

Here's one:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121505_w orld_stories.shtml

Ha! You linked to the Washington Times. Come on, thats like linking to Indymedia ... a great resource if you like to reinforce your own incorrect beliefs. Did you know Bush was behind 9/11? Its on the Internet, so it must be true!

Of course, murphy's law says that if so, they will replenish at a rate at a rate matching our correct consumption divided by 2. Meaning we will still be up the creek without a paddle.

You are right, it is not and I seriously doubt it ever will. It just takes too much land/vehicle to be practical. Some parties indicate that this issue of oil dependence has already gone beyond critical mass (meaning supplies have peaked and will slowly not be able to meet demand in the near future causing all kinds of economic and social griefs--neither of which possibilites I had ever considered possible in my lifetime). It has even grabbed the attenion of some of the folks in the House of Representatives for whatever good that will do...

The suggestions that I have read repeatedly is that we need to put the energy and effort into renewable energy sources on the scale of the man-to-the-moon effort. Critical. It has been stated that President Bush was very much interested in this situation prior to 9/11 and the events that have transpired. Needless to say, he's been somewhat sidetracked...

Gimme nuclear fusion and better batteries!

See http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101805_w orld_stories.shtml#5 for an interesting take on the whole situation...

Ok you want to get really paranoid?

http://www.rense.com/general20/mic.htm

Absolutely sensationalist, just like SARS.
The common cold/flu kills around 40,000 americans (that's the stat I saw, don't know about world-wide) each year, but SARS with a handful of deaths globally got BIG press. Now this practically non-existant bird flu gets everyone all worked up.
I'll worry when there's a few thousand deaths. Until then, eat healthy food, exercise and keep that immune system running. If you're not one of the typical flu victims (elderly, very young or compromised immune system from other causes), you'll have an excellent chance to shrug it off, even if it does spread.

See http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/101805_w orld_stories.shtml#5 for an interesting take on the whole situation...

This is why I like McKinney:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_m ckinney_transcript.shtml

Transcript of Representative Cynthia McKinney's Exchange with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers, and Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas, March 11th, 2005

Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld in House Hearing on FY06 Dept. of Defense Budget
Chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and witnesses Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and JCS Chairman General Richard Myers hold a House Hearing on the FY 2006 Budget for the Department of Defense and Military Services.
3/11/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 5 min.

CMK: Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
DR: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
RM: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers
TJ: Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Tina Jonas
DH: Chairman Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

25:20
CMK: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?

That's my first question. My second question, Mr. Secretary: according to the Comptroller General of the United States, there are serious financial management problems at the Pentagon, to which Mr. Cooper alluded.

Fiscal Year 1999: $2.3 trillion missing.

Fiscal Year 2000, $1.1 trillion missing.

And DoD is the number one reason why the government can't balance its checkbook. The Pentagon has claimed year after year that the reason it can't account for the money is because its computers don't communicate with each other.

My second question, Mr. Secretary, is who has the contracts today, to make those systems communicate with each other? How long have they had those contracts, and how much have the taxpayers paid for them?

Finally Mr. Secretary, after the last Hearing, I thought that my office was promised a written response to my question regarding the four wargames on September 11th. I have not yet received that response, but would like for you to respond to the questions that I've put to you today. And then I do expect the written response to my previous question - hopefully by the end of the week.

27:26
DR: Thank you, Representative. First, the answer to your first question is, is, no, absolutely not, the policy of the United States Government is clear, unambiguous, and opposed to the activities that you described. The second question -

CMK: Well how do you explain the fact that DynCorp and its successor companies have received and continue to receive government contracts?

DR: I would have to go and find the facts, but there are laws and rules and regulations with respect to government contracts, and there are times that corporations do things they should not do, in which case they tend to be suspended for some period; there are times then that the - under the laws and the rules and regulations for the - passed by the Congress and implemented by the Executive branch - that corporations can get off of - out of the penalty box if you will, and be permitted to engage in contracts with the government. They're generally not barred in perpetuity -

CMK: This contract - this company - was never in the penalty box. If you could proceed to my second question, please.

DR: The se

>>>"That's all current vegetable oil production. Serious, forward-looking studies of biodiesel consider growing new crops specifically optimized for oil production. IIRC an area 105 miles square would suffice for the entire energy requirements of the U.S.." Dream on. The areas required to grow biodiesel are ENORMOUS! For example... Australia exports 80% of our wheat. We eat a LOT of Weet Bix, bread, pasta, etc... but we still export 80% of our wheat. We grow a lot! But if we were to convert all 100% of our wheat into ethanol, we'd only get 9% of our transport fuels and no Weet Bix, bread, or wheat exports! Biodiesel has similar land limitations. You quickly end up running into making a choice between land and food! Also, how is it grown? If it is grown with traditional industrial "green revolution" agriculture, you LOSE energy! That's right. Look up the Haber Bosch process and figure how much gas energy gets used making nitrogen fertilizer. Figure how much petroleum & diesel energy gets used mining and transporting Phosphorous and Potassium. Once you add in the NPK values of the fertilizer, you realize we are in trouble. Then there's the pesticides... made from the petrochemical industry... oil again! So it's no wonder the "Green revolution" is now decidedly looked on as NOT that green. Indeed, after peak oil we will have enough trouble feeding ourselves, let alone growing fuel. check out "Eating Fossil fuels" at the link below. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_e ating_oil.html If the USA COULD grow it's own oil from just a hundred or so square miles of dirt, why hasn't it? Why blow out the trade figures? Why fund your enemies? Why go to war in Iraq? This is not a game Chris... IIRC, 105 square miles is NOT going to fuel America. http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D86.RE.Ch.5 .LiquidsX.html Chris, please read the two links above. They could change your understanding of the world situation. This is really not a game, not a matter of personal opinion. We are in trouble... peak oil is here and yet we keep focussing on what "future cars" will look like when hardly anyone will be driving!

I really don't care if you believe in peak oil. I do. I have a plan to deal with its consequences. If for some yet undiscovered reason it doesn't happen in my lifetime, that'll be just great! I won't have lost much. If it does however, then those who have done nothing to create a backup plan will have a tough time adjusting.

Refusing to accept the facts of peak oil and gas production and sticking finger in your ears while shouting "I can't hear you" does nothing to address the problem. Get your head out of the sand and deal with reality lest reality will deal with you. But above all, stop shooting the messenger.

And even if you think the peak is wrong, it doesn't matter. Even if there's infinite oil, its consumption is still destroying the planet.

And if you think the peak doesn't matter globally, think again. The trade balance is dependent on the US importing foreign oil. US oil dollars prop up many nations around the world. And if you think the implosion of Saudi Arabia doesn't matter, think about how many terrorists come from there, and think about how many more will be recruited if the country is thrown into a depression that makes 1929 look like a dress rehersal.

There are so many scenarios for global destruction from the peak I don't want to think about them all. This is some serious stuff, and we can't take it so lightly that it's just another fad or something that can be ignored.

Do you know the exact text of the "oppressing christians" criterion for identifying "the" antichrist? Of course, it's probably translated into English from Latin, and probably from Greek to that, and possibly even from Aramaic to that. And every step introduces a translator's chance for mistake/bias/relevance interpretation. But I'd like to know what christians *today*, who would be the oppressed, are prepared to expect from such a character. Specifically, whether the oppression would be exclusive to christians, and whether defined by their christianity, or a necessary correlate to it.

Moreover, I believe (at least one) antichrist prophecy predicts that some christians would recognize "the" antichrist before the unmistakable havoc they cause, while some would recognize it later - and others would not at all, christian or otherwise. Do you know if that is consistent with the prophecy? And whether there are christians who might agree with me that Bush fits these prophecies? For example, I've read reports suggesting that the last Pope thought Bush could be "the Antichrist". I wonder how widespread is that belief. Because these characters, and their effect on the world, is composed entirely of that belief, in the minds of the people at that time.

FWIW, I think Bush and his team are as skilled at gaining power as they are unskilled at using it. But they are completely without ethics in defending their power from threats. Even if you don't believe that they were actively complicit, or knowingly passive, in the 2001 planebombings that justify so much of their subsequent power, their abuse of it is clear. Just a couple of weeks ago, Tom Ridge (the first Homeland Security director, until Bush's reelection) stated publicly that many "terror alerts" were based on "flimsy evidence", unjustified in his view. But he was overruled by the others in the group which decides to issue alerts: Rumsfeld/Defense, Ashcroft/Justice, Mueller/FBI, Tenet/CIA, and Powell/State. It's clear that the complaints at the time from the skeptical "opposition" in America were accurate: Bush used fake terror alerts for political gain. If his current slide continues, and threatens either Congressional votes (like picking Supreme Court justices) or the 2006 Congressional elections, I'd expect Bush to unleash some kind of really bad event to motivate his "base". Like an attack that inambiguously "oppresses christians", to justify some kind of retaliation in their name.

At the very least, it's going to be a long 3 more years, even if they include a Democrat retaking of Congress (or just the House), and a miraculous impeachment.

the problem is related to the scale required. What nazi Germany required was miniscule compared to the shortfall we may be facing. Anyway if we liquefy most of our coal it will peak in less than two decades.

Unfortunately, love & sex are too powerful to be dealt with in a sane fashion by humanity.

If I'm not mistaken, there were supposed to be drills that day to prepare for a terrorist attack involving kamakaze pilots.

There is an interesting (but rather suspect) timeline available

And Jacques Vallee applied the scientific method to UFO reports, and surprisingly, could extract actual information from them. And was roundly ingnored by both skeptics and true believers. Go figure.

-FL

Be a little more paranoid--it might do you some good. :)

Recommended reading: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth. pdf and http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/08/far04029.ht ml

There is a common reason behind the recent major changes in US foreign policy and internal politics, and none of the comments so far have pointed it out.

We are becoming a police state and finding (or even creating) excuses to project military power in the Middle East in preparation for, basically, Doomsday.

So much of our economy is dependent on oil production, not only for energy, but for agricultural fertilizer and countless consumer and industrial goods as well.

We've all heard that petroleum reserves will be depleted by about 2040. But most haven't considered that oil production is predicted to peak in 2007. After about 2007 one can only assume there will be increasingly hostile international competition for dwindling oil production.

Add to the 2007 peaking in oil production the following looming crises:

1. Global warming. If the jump in the rate of increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 seen in the last two years maintains, action will have to be taken within decades or less to insure a run-away greenhouse effect is avoided.

2. Decreasing production from farms, the fact fertilizers used in commercial farming are made from petroleum, and the peaking of oil production in 2007. Add to this exponential population growth. Studies have predicted the world can only sustain a population of about 2.5 billion given current technologies.

A life and death struggle between 6 billion for resources that can only support about 2.5 billion is a recipe for a global conflagration that will make the previous world wars look like minor skrimishes.

That is why the US continues to spend for defense at Cold War levels even though the world is currently at peace. I think the increase in power of right-wing fundamentalist christianity in US society can be fit to this theory as well.

What doesn't fit (I admit!) is the current administrations refusal to take global warming seriously, rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and insufficient leadership in developing alternative energy sources, especially nuclear. Maybe the Armageddon-fixated christian fundamentalists really have taken over. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/ story/0,14259,1204684,00.html

Free internet access available in our public schools and libraries strengthens the association in the publics' mind between first ammendment rights and internet publication and access rights.

The problem is that alternative news sources don't respect the "talking points" and propaganda that are so essential to the so-called "war on terror". How can the owners of our socitety herd us in the direction they believe we need to go when there is a grass-roots movement on the internet to poke holes in the false rationals we're being given?

For this reason I believe the near future we will see efforts to make it more difficult to access or publish alternative news on the internet, especially if Bush is re-elected.

Just take a look at what the mainstream news media didn't bother to tell you last year: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/i ndex.html.

Alternative news sources on the internet were all over these stories. For example take a look at what Michael Ruppert (editor of an internet news site) had to say on the subject of Project Censored's #1 censored story of 2004: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth. pdf

Its the most imporant 50 pages you will read all year, but the mainstream news media has ignored it.

During the Republican National Convention, when the GOP was zealously exploiting 9/11 to sell Bush-Cheney and the endless "war on terror," a poll was released stating that half of New Yorkers now think that Bush team members purposely allowed 9/11 to happen and thus abetted the attacks.

In the first scientific poll of public attitudes about possible government complicity in the 9/11 attacks, Zogby International reported on Monday, August 30th that over 49% of New York City residents believe that U.S. government leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to take action" and 66% called for either Congress or the New York Attorney General to reopen the 9/11 investigation. (See http://zogby.com/news)

"This is yet another demonstration that the 9/11 Commission did not answer or even address most of the victim families' most serious concerns, and that public hunger is now growing for some real 9/11 truth," said Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb.

"Since April 2004 the Greens have been the only political party to express solidarity with victim families exasperated or outraged by the Kean Commission cover-up. We have consistently supported their demands for a new investigation which addresses all of their unanswered questions, especially those suggesting foreknowledge, criminal negligence and complicity."

Hitler's staging of a terrorist attack vs. Bush's exploitation of a real attack

Members of his administration might have helped engineer the attacks see Crossing the Rubicon. If even 10% of what ruppert talks about is true the implications are overwhelming.

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that when the President of the United States decides to embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, claiming that there is an imminent threat to his own nation, the burdern of proof is on him to support those claims. Let's see the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. How about those aerial drones that could be used against the US? An Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Some uranium from Africa? Anything?

After you prosecute Halliburton* and every other US defense, technology and financial company for doing the same thing for 150 years or so and to the tune of trillions of dollars - come to think of it, isn't that the whole thing that the Bush Administration doesn't want people to know from Moore's 911? Come on, when the bribe you were caught giving was 180 million how many and for how much were there that didn't get publicized - it would be like saying there is only one bug because it is the only one that was reported.

* How about today I saw a blurb on Bloomberg news that Halliburton and others are using their offices in the Cayman Islands so they could make deals with countries that the US labels as "terrorist"

Brown and Root's Candidate
Most Unpatriotic US Company
Halliburton to stop Soldier's emails during 2004 summer
Empty trucks crossing Iraq to increase profits
Libyia
The Dresser merger also raised ethical questions. The United States had concluded that Iraq, Libya, and Iran supported terrorism and had imposed strict sanctions on them. Yet during Cheney's tenure at Halliburton the company did business in all three countries. In the case of Iraq, Halliburton legally evaded U.S. sanctions by conducting its oil-service business through foreign subsidiaries that had once been owned by Dresser. With Iran and Libya, Halliburton used its own subsidiaries. The use of foreign subsidiaries may have helped the company to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
and on and on...
Halliburton: We like third world people - for slaves
mining and oil are controlled by a small elite group that know no national boundaries