I grew up in ChiTown. With its great public transportation system, as many mid-western and Eastern cities have, 70 miles/day seems unlikely. (San Francisco not withstanding).

But down here in SoCal, 70 miles/day - and more is not uncommon. Remember also, that's not just the driving of 70+ miles/day, it's also the stopping in traffic. But, I think for many that kinda range might work at a reasonable price. There is of course another part to the equation. How much?

I pretty much agree about the Big 3, as they whine about retirees' costs. But if the management had been ahead of the curve as you say, and health-care costs were not an issue they could compete.

Gee, can anyone tell me how Exxon-Mobile managed to make more money than any other corporation in the history of the Republic?

 

According to Richard Heinberg ("The Party's Over") and others, we're already WAY over the carrying capacity of the planet.

Heinberg points out that the only reason planet Earth supports 6.5 billion people today is because of petroleum based fertilizers (Haber/Bosch natural gas to ammonia; invented 1906).

One hundred years ago, with the agricultural technology of the period, the Earth supported 1.7 billion peeps. Over the next century, as oil is depleted, something like 4 billion people may have to find some other planet to live on. I doubt that they will go quietly.

 

This problem would not exist if there were only, say, 1 billion humans. The scarcity is happening because there's too many of us. Last time mother nature solved the problem with the Black Death.

This time she's going to starve us of oil & create a massive starvation cycle where people scramble just to find a way to get to work, or heat the house (or do neither and go homeless). Why ask a question when the answer has already been given? "...same way you save a can of gasoline in the basement in case of emergency..." When the "merde" hits the fan, I'd rather be getting oil from my own backyard than have no oil left & relying on outside sources.

 

Actually the coming collapse will make the black death look mundane. Human population growth was quite linear until around 1700. Thats when we pretty much figured agriculture out and the rest is history:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...tion_curve.svg

The population estimate for 1700 is around 600mm people.

I disagree with Heinberg's optimistic figure because 100 years ago the industrial revolution was in full swing with factories bellowing out emissions which is not sustainable long-term, at 1700 mankind really was not affecting the atmosphere at all as it was pre-industrialization.

I'm just hoping I live in the sweet spot of 1980-2060ish, and that TSHTF after this timeframe. With enough investment in technology, maybe its possible to defer it to this point.

The longer term prognosis certainly doesn't look good with the world population growing 10% every 7 years.

 

If the United States truly wanted to solve this problem, it would follow China. No more immigrants (not enough room for sustainable living), and current citizens would be limited to just one boy or one girl. It would follow a policy to reduce its citizenship from 300 to 100 million over the next century. The E.U. should follow a similar policy.

This is a realistic solution to the overpopulation problem, but unpopular with voters, who lack self-control (average credit debt of $9000) and think the planet has no limits.

Mother Nature will soon teach us how wrong we were.

The future is not Star Trek.

The future is bleak and dismal with oil starvation.

 

I'm very optimistic about the future.
Surely Detroit lags behind efficient foreign vehicles, but look how far technology has come across the board. Only 30 years ago most cars lacked even basic emission devices. Fuel injection was special equipment on select cars. And many more innovations.

Who could have imagined back in the 70's today's automobiles? Sure they had 50MPG Civic's but are a far cry from today's models by practically any measure. The computer was a terminal fed by a paper punch card in the school's science lab. Cell phones were like suitcases, available to the few.

Even the attitude of most people are changing. Practiclly all aspects of our lives are becoming more and more efficient, I'd even suggest driving habits of many people have changed. Most cars used to pass me as I drive efficently in the Right lanes, now many share the same habit.

Yes, surely we have some tough times ahead of us. It will no doubt get worse before better. But to paint a bleak, dismal picture- as if the world has no future just isn't realistic.
With the very diverse kinds of technology currently in development- and yet to be discoverd- coupled with changing ideas and attitudes- I'm very optimistic.

I could stand on a soap box and preach doom and gloom, that the world is rapidly coming to a post morbid scenaro. It isn't realistic, and is cruel to offer no hope, especially to those who would believe it.

Looking forward to tomorrow
-Steve

 

The sweet spot as you put it I think depends on when you were born, among other factors. I see the sweet spot beginning around 1947 and continuing into the '80's, or perhaps the '90's.

Any way, I see the confluence of three events any one of which is dire, but all three together are catastrophic: The demise of oil as the primary source of energy without a significant replacement. Continuing population growth. World wide climate change.

I think we might with a lot of luck solve the first 2 (tho I can't see how, but who knows).

It's the climate change that is the run-a-way train. I think that in spite of what may be accomplished on the first two, the third has reached I think its tipping point. Or it is very close. Yesterday I heard that daffodils are out in Kew Gardens in London, a full month early. Birds are arriving at their summer feeding grounds so early that their food has not yet become available.

So, to continue in this vein, looking at the Little Ice Age which ended around the middle of the 19th Cent. a major result will be a population crash. It wasn't just the cold which did that population in but starvation and/or malnutrition. This was the time of the Bubonic Plaque which continued to sweep through Europe for around 100 years of and on, killing off all the genetic misfits to this disease. But there was also small pox, and tuberculosis.

So, from my height of 72 years, things don't look so hot. I suggest you all read Cormac McCarthy's, The Road.

Pretty Grim.

 

Yep. Democracies have a problem controlling their citizens.

 

Well the world certainly has a future. The question is, are we part of that future?

Nobody has a lock on what is realistic. I think it's unrealistic to assume everything will come out all right. For one thing, neither of us (not just or me ) will be around to see how it all ends.

By the, if you get the chance, read, The Road.

 

Which is why Athens fell. Too much democracy led them into a foolsih war that they ultimately lost. Then they lost their empire. (Sound familiar?) Even the American Founders said democracy is a poor way to run a country, which is why we have a Republic of Laws, not majority rules.

They envisioned wise, learned leaders making decisions on behalf of the uneducated masses and tried to design a system where only one branch (the House) was under direct control of the citizens. The President and Senators were elected by the States, and the Supreme Court not elected at all, but instead assigned to a lifetime role.

But we no longer have a republic.
We have a democracy.

The leaders must do what Hillary, McCain, and all the rest are doing: Telling citizens what they want to hear ("If you elect me, I'll give you free stuff"), rather than rule wisely by cutting spending, paying off the debt, and preparing to face the shock of oil starvation. The leaders don't rule. The masses rule. And the masses are ignorant *****. Like full-grown children. (Recent psych studies show that today's adults never pass the childhood stage; they are narcisists.)

Democracy is a poor way to run a country.
Republicanism/federalism is a better approach.
"You have a Republic. If you can keep it," said Benjamin Franklin.
Well we lost it. Today the country is run by polls, not laws.