Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Systemic Collapse: The Basics

No, but what's needed is real change, not fads. It's one thing for middle-class graduates to declare their interest in a bit of farm-work in the country of a weekend, but if working-class and under-class people for instance, living on some council estate somewhere aren't going to engage; then it really will just amount to another well-meaning fad. .

You've read a fair few assumptions into that. I actually declared an interest in substituting some of the working week for farmwork, not weekend. These could be workplace-led, union-led initiatives. Yes, they need to engage a wide demographic to be meaningful, but I didn't suggest otherwise.
 
You've read a fair few assumptions into that. I actually declared an interest in substituting some of the working week for farmwork, not weekend. These could be workplace-led, union-led initiatives. Yes, they need to engage a wide demographic to be meaningful, but I didn't suggest otherwise.

Fair enough but I don't hold out much hope tbh, we'd need a fundamental change in the current economic architecture and consumer culture that already has proved beyond the abilities of our current capitalist society.

Even democracy is beyond us, banksters piss in our face and tell us "yeh, what? say somethin...". We're probably doomed. :(
 
Well, part of the reason it will happen if it does will be because the economic conditions make it viable. If small farmers continue to give up and the cost of food continues to go up, those two factors could make it seem more worthwhile to give up a day's wages in return for a share of farm produce. There are lots of people here who know more about this than I do, but as I understand it, oil-free farming is far more labour-intensive than oil-based farming, so there would also be a practical need for more bodies on the farms.

The example of Cuba given in that paper is an example of how economic conditions made a lot of town-dwellers into part-time farmers of one kind or another. It wasn't even particularly a government-led thing - people took it upon themselves to do it out of necessity.
 
Well, part of the reason it will happen if it does will be because the economic conditions make it viable. If small farmers continue to give up and the cost of food continues to go up, those two factors could make it seem more worthwhile to give up a day's wages in return for a share of farm produce. There are lots of people here who know more about this than I do, but as I understand it, oil-free farming is far more labour-intensive than oil-based farming, so there would also be a practical need for more bodies on the farms.

Might soak up some of the unemployed workforce that currently doesn't do it worth it to work on a farm as Polish twenty-somethings did a few years ago. My money's on 200 dollar a barrel oil that making algae-fuel finally worth investing in big time.:)

Unfortunately energy is not the entirety of what we use petrochems for, hopefully there are other substitutes.

[drive-by swipe] I don't think there's any point hoping genetic engineering's going to be any use in terms of food-production though, the Gates Foundation just wants to Monsanto-ize African farmland in my opinion. [/drive-by swipe]
 
There are probably a number of agendas driving GM, some of them rather seedy (pardon the pun!), but I expect that stuff to do with yields and reducing pesticide etc use is actually a real factor in there somewhere. No idea if it will work out or backfire horribly, its hardly without risk especially given the other agendas.
 
Interesting article on recent changes to US military policy:

The Pentagon's New Generation of Secret Military Bases, Mother Jones, 16 July 2012


I heard Vines interview about this here. I'm starting to wonder if the US objective is nothing less than world government domination. Well I guess it has obviously been so for a while now but... I for one am only now starting to realize how serious they are about it.

With any luck they'll bankrupt themselves eventually.
 
The US certainly looks ahead strategically a long way. I don't know if many of you recall the excellent 1975 Sydney Pollock thriller, "Three Days of the Condor", starring Robert Redford. Very seldom shown,I wonder why ! but the underlying "big conspiracy" uncovered was a long term plan for the USA to take over all the Middle East Oilfields. It's certainly turned out to be very much "on the ball". Without wanting to fall into "Illuminati" bollocks conspiracy nonsense, I do wonder just how far forward the Pentagon "futurist think tanks" have mapped the consequences of the approach of Oil and other resources, depletion, combined with the slow decline of US military and economic supremacy, and just what world power bloc "restructuring" the Dr Strangelove strategists in the Pentagon and State Department have been plotting over the last 30 years or so, to replace the "Grand Area" strategy that carried US world hegemony forward so successfully from WWII.
 
They seem to be fantasizing a lot more about having some sort of hot conflict in Africa I notice, though obviously their main agenda is to get stuck in to a new cold war with China.

The problem as I see it is that their system truly does depend on warfare, somewhere, always. It's not so much about design (although there are thinktank-loads of well paid Strangeloves who's job is indeed that I am sure) it's really more something like instinct, or impulse. The creature (the much mentioned military-industrial-congressional complex) must forever push forward after new prey, or die. This is literally their business-as-usual, revolving doors and all.
 
Without wanting to fall into "Illuminati" bollocks conspiracy nonsense, I do wonder just how far forward the Pentagon "futurist think tanks" have mapped the consequences of the approach of Oil and other resources, depletion, combined with the slow decline of US military and economic supremacy, and just what world power bloc "restructuring" the Dr Strangelove strategists in the Pentagon and State Department have been plotting over the last 30 years or so, to replace the "Grand Area" strategy that carried US world hegemony forward so successfully from WWII.

They recently handed the President the power to invoke Martial Law without reference to Congress, gave their military the power, under martial law, to open fire on civilians and subject their citizens to unlimited detention and trial by secret military court, repositioned US troops on active duty on US soil and began training them in US-specific civil disorder control and city lockdown tactics. I'd say they've mapped it pretty well.
 
A neat summation by Dimitry Orlov in his latest piece citing a paper by David Korowicz as essential reading (a long read!)

There is a cautionary tale to be extracted from all this, and it is the obvious one: that usury results in collapse. Usury—lending at interest—is only viable in an expanding economy; once economic growth stops, the burden of usurious debt causes it to implode. “The whole of the financial and economic system is dependent upon credit dynamics and leverage.” (p. 8) “Debt is now not just a feature of countries and banks—it is a system stress in the globalized economy as a whole.” (p. 9) It is no accident that Dante'sInferno consigned usurers to the lowest pit of the seventh circle of Hell. But beyond waiting for the usurers to die and get assigned to the appropriate pit for all eternity, what is there for us to do? Not lend or borrow at interest? Well, that's the one problem we certainly won't have to worry about!
Other than that, first and foremost, no matter who you are or where you are or how many wooden shekels you've squirreled away under your floorboards, don't expect a soft landing. After reading this treatise, I am now more than ever convinced that sovereign debt default is not some sort of spring shower that passes and then the sun comes out again. If Korowicz is right—and he appears to have done his homework—then at some point what is now still a gradual process will lead to a sudden, irreversible, catastrophic disruption of daily life. (And looking at the reports coming out of Greece and Spain, imagining such a scenario no longer requires much of an imagination.) Korowicz does not have a lot to offer when it comes to practical adaptations to survive such a systemic breakdown, beyond stating the obvious, which I will repeat: “Initially the most exposed would be those with little cash at hand, low home inventories, mobility restrictions and weak family and community ties.” In other words, be prepared, and do your best to give yourself a chance.
 
A neat summation by Dimitry Orlov in his latest piece citing a paper by David Korowicz as essential reading (a long read!)


Interesting stuff, not hard for me to come to terms with, will try to read the paper at some point but it sounds like the jargon might kill me.

Seeing as I am fond of picking at the boundaries between believing or disbelieving that such a full-spectrum collapse looms close, think I will pick on this point that Orlov made:

In a shrinking economy, “taking care of one's own” becomes more important than maintaining a trust relationship with strangers across the world.

Well surely one of the great complexities of this age is that few who are in the role of managing things are unaware of how deeply interconnected everything has become, and so its not so easy to distinguish between taking care of your own and trust relationships with strangers since one is so obviously reliant on the other. This is one of the major reasons I sometimes speak of how little wiggle room most players have in todays great game. Certainly once rot has reached a certain point these things will be shown not to be unbreakable, and the shit cascade can commence in many old-school ways.

But there exist immense forces that will try to avoid that scenario at almost any cost, including thinking and doing the unthinkable themselves, as a last resort in the face of collapse or loss of control. And thats one of the reasons I cant get too carried away with predicting timescales, especially as years of stagnation or contraction provide some breathing space, ultimately robbing us of certain sustainable/less bloody options but keeping the overnight doom at bay for x years in the meantime. And being able to keep a lid on the excessive pressure buildup for so long may make it even harder to predict which direction it will blow off in eventually. I suspect right now they may be trying to deflate it slowly over a number of decades, but I doubt this will go smoothly.
 
I spotted this interesting article by Vaclav Smil:

A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy
In 2025 modern wind turbines will have been around for some 30 years, and if by then they supply just 15 percent of the electricity in the United States, it will be a stunning success. And even the most optimistic projects for solar generation don’t promise half that much.
 
I spotted this interesting article by Vaclav Smil:

A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy
he makes some valid points, but some of it's also so obviously wrong it smacks of a smear.

It took 30 years—since the launch of small, modern wind turbines in 1980—to reach even that modest percentage. By comparison, nuclear power had accounted for 20 percent of all U.S. generation within 30 years of its launch in 1957, and gas turbines achieved 10 percent three decades after they went into operation in the early 1960s.
wind lost pretty much all government support under reagan, at which point virtually all US wind projects and manufacturers went bust, only regaining it in the mid 90's, but even then it was allowed to lapse several times and has only been solid since 2005.

Nuclear had relatively consistent high level support for the full 30 years and beyond, so the comparison is bogus.

still others take into account the fact that photovoltaic installations require not just cells but also frames, inverters, batteries, and labor. These associated expenses are not plummeting at all, and that is why the cost of electricity generated by residential solar systems in the United States has not changed dramatically since 2000.
I've no idea about US prices, but our installed prices have fallen from about £3.50 per Wp for a 4kWp domestic system in 2010 to around £1.50-£1.60 now, with 30kW + stuff now coming out at just below £1 per Wp for the best sites.

Lifetime costs per kWh on the 30kW stuff is going to work out at well below grid parity if you took it over a 40 year lifespan, though I suppose the actual total feed in tariff payments need to be factored in, not just the up front capital costs. The FIT costs have dropped massively over the last year though, and are scheduled for cuts every 3 months from now on, so this is rapidly becoming less of an issue, and really is forcing down prices in the industry.
 
I have a question.

If economic growth is determined by low energy prices, and high energy prices must always lead to a downward economic spiral, how come Germany has nearly double the electricity price that we have, and virtually the highest price in the EU, yet is effectively the economic and industrial power house economy of Europe?
 
Electricity price for who? Houses, business and apartment blocks will all pay different levels, if it's like in Sweden.
 
Back
Top Bottom