I currently finishing up on the final chapters of one of the most intelligent yet grim books I have ever read in my life.

The Long Emergency was released in 2004 by James Howard Kunstler is one very intelligent man's take on what is happening now and what will continue to happen not only in this country but worldwide.

Its about peak oil and our slow descent or die off if you will of the world in which we currently live in.

http://www.kunstler.com/

The majority of the people who I have shared this books subject with just cannot even begin to think about the implications of the authors theories on what we are all about to go through as humanity. How our civilization is once again at a turning point and how we cannot continue on our current path.

No more oil, and other sources that are supposed to "save us" aren't going to happen.

He talks in detail about geopolitical topics and what we as humanity have to look forward to.

Has anyone else read this great book?

If so what are your thoughts and do you agree with the author?

If you haven't read check it out!

Here is a Rolling Stone review:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

Shy

I just spent a few minutes reading Kunstler's daily blog. He has some solid ideas and concerns as well as good solutions.

I'm already in the midst of reading two books that I am having trouble attending too, but maybe I can get my veracious reading wife to take this book on. I think she would enjoy it.

Thanks for the post

I'm concerned about this too Shyguy. We have moved away from distributed, community oriented living to a more centralized state.

This is not as sustainable as we may well need.

For anybody not up on this issue, it all comes down to energy density and portability. Nothing tops OIL for this.

All of our infrastructure depends on this portability and high energy density. We eat and stay warm because of it.

Take it away, without doing the build-outs of more distributed and diverse energy sources and people are going to just die.

I do disagree with the general idea that mass death is unavoidable though. We do have many energy sources that are nearly as potent as oil. We have the means to exploit them in a pretty sustainable way too.

What we don't have is the political will necessary to get it done.

People don't have to die. We can make adjustments, and refactor how we live, where we live, and such. Takes time to do. I believe there is this time remaining.

It won't always be the case though. Oil is needed for the build-outs and to transition without losses of life.

At some point, we cross the point of no return. Many say it's when oil peaks. I don't buy that one. I think it's somewhere after the peak, with that somewhere really depending on our priorities.

I do however, believe it's possible to cross that point without realizing it. That's the scary part in all of this. It's just scale!

Could be a 5 year deal, could be 50. Nobody really knows.

We could have already passed too. Nobody can nail that down either.

One point of agreement is that action is required. There is no consensus on the time, because of the scale problem.

Perhaps that does make mass dying unavoidable. Point to the Peak Oil folks for that one. I've not a good answer for it, other than it's never too late to get started so that we may keep the damage to a minimum.

Kunstler suggest only one really large scale oil replacement and thats nuclear power plants. However it takes alot of oil based infrastructure to build so we need to start now. But that is where the political will, will indeed not allow this to happen. Hydroelectricity is on a smaller scale a better option if a community can sustain itself totally.

We do have many energy sources that are nearly as potent as oil......

But can we market them at a price affordable to those with lesser means?

Portability is changing as well, as solar cells become cheaper and lighter. If the means of energy production become more portable, that will also affect the equation. The decentralization of energy creation (or extraction) is key.

Roger, that question is a matter of infrastructure and political will.

Either we transition our existing infrastructure, or we don't. If we do, then it's worth it, and it will happen.

If we don't, then we won't. Marketing that energy to people of lesser means isn't even on the table.

We need energy to survive, period. How much of it we need and how we get it determines who will live and who dies.

So then, are people worth the trouble? That's the core question really.

And I just have to. Sorry!

Where the hell are the pro-lifers, "every life has potential" people on this matter? If we are all precious, worth it, have the potential to be the next great person, then getting this done is absolutely a no brainer!

Funny how that works!

So nothing really changes except who controls what. It is still and always will be, an every man for himself society, and if one person gets more than they need and others get nothing, then that's the way it will be. Seems we are just replacing one greedy group with others. The fact of the matter is at some point there will have to be a shakeout of humanity whether naturally, or through man made means. Whether someone is a compassionate humanist concerned with the starving masses in Africa, or a rigid Maoist/Stalinist/Hitlerist who has no problems eliminating millions of "INFERIORS" there will be a population reduction to a more manageble level.

You think "CLIMATE CHANGE" can be reversed by re educating americans to live greener? NOTHING this side of the aisle is pushing will solve this issue short of dumping 4 billion people. You won't hear Al Gore and friends bring that up, but I bet they think it.

Maybe the end game is to push them out by making it too expensive to exist. Use all your resources available. Yes, drill more, build a few nuke plants, exploit smaller hydo sources, all the while developing other sources, then as solar, thermal, hydrogen, wind, alt fuels become more widespread, THEN power down the traditional sources. The plan as it is now to bring everything in ASAP while not exploiting additional traditional sources will lead to excessive costs many won't be able to afford.

Its too little too late, and we are as a collective whole not even prepared to begin who our lives are going to dramatically change over the next 40-50 years. We cannot fathom what it would be like to live in an era of days long gone by.

Roger I want to hear what you think are effective alternatives for oil.

Well if you ask me, I think everyone needs to go out and buy an American made hybrid. Two reasons:

1. The president himself has cited the millions of gallons of foreign oil we would NOT use if everyone was to go out and buy something that would only need a fill up every 750 miles.

2. So you want to boost the economy? Buying a car made in the USA would be the best way to bale out Detroit and put people back to work by creating demand for these kind of cars.

You see, this is how I differ from our friends on the right. THEY want to have their gas guzzlers, not thinking they do far more to help the terrorists than they accuse us on the left of doing by opposing more war in the middle east. The way I see it is if you really want to hurt the terror movement, cut the amount of oil we're buying in half, therefore cutting off the gravy train. This is why it's important for the government to give tax credits for those of us who want to do what's right for the world and our people, not drive my gas guzzler, wave my flag, wage needless war and then tell everyone what I great American I am. You hit them where it hurts and stop buying their damn oil.

Unfortunately, the conservatives don't want to hear this. All they want to hear is GOD, GOD, GOD, WAR, WAR, WAR.

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS.

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS. = GOOD, GOOD, GOOD!

More is better!

Yup, just go right down to a suburban pawn shop, pick something out and come to Portland and blast away at kids.

Yeah GUNS!

F-you. Here's hoping the next dead kid is someone you know.

I have a friend, Adam, who is a Libertarian AND a Peak Oil guy! He is involved in a Peak Oil education group based in the Hillsboro area. According to him, there are many different viewpoints in the Peak Oil movement, and he does not agree with all of them.

I hope that I am accurately representing his Libertarian view of the Peak Oil concept: as petroleum is used up, market forces will make it more and more expensive. If alternatives to petroleum as an energy source and as a chemical are not developed before a certain tipping point occurs, society and the economy will suffer greatly, as transportation and petrochemicals become unaffordable. Thus, it is in everybody's long-term interest to develop these alternatives before it is too late. What makes his view of Peak Oil libertarian is that he wants to focus on using education to get the public to demand the development of alternatives, rather than using Draconian legislation to discourage the use of petroleum.

F-you. Here's hoping the next dead kid is someone you know.

Nice. A new all time low for a post from Skeptical.

Remember; Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

Guns are here to stay. With that said I'm not really sure how anyone could have prevented what happened last week.

Has anyone heard how the gunman got his gun?

Chris, I saw a "teaser" for the news with the gun shop owner that sold him the gun.

However, I didn't see the news broadcast.

I'd have to assume from the teaser that he bought it legally because the gun shop owner was pretty upset.

I'll do some research and try and find out.

Chris, here is the info on where he got the gun. (from the KOIN web site);

Shooting suspect Erik Ayala died at a Portland hospital Tuesday afternoon, apparently from damage suffered from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

Investigators say the gun used in a downtown Portland shooting rampage that left two dead and eight wounded was purchased at a pawn shop near the apartment of the accused gunman.

The owner of 99 Pawn & Guns in suburban Milwaukie says one of his employees recognized 24-year-old Erik Ayala after police released his photo on Monday.

Bryan Kellim said Ayala came into the store on Jan. 6 and 7, before purchasing the Italian-manufactured EAA Witness 9 mm pistol for about $350 on Jan. 9. Kellim described Ayala as laid-back and calm.

Police say the pawn shop is located near Ayala's residence.He had attempted to purchase the weapon on January 6th but did not have the correct identification, but returned on the 9th with proper ID.

What the article doesn't go on to say is that buying a gun at a pawn shop requires the same background and ID checks that buying one at say, Sportsman's Warehouse does.

As long as the pawn shop followed the rules, it appears that he purchased the gun legally.

The shooter is dead. As stated above, he died Tuesday.

That's a bad thing in that we'll never know his motive behind the shooting spree. It's good thing in that there will be a lot of court costs saved.

As things continue to get worse and decline frustrations and stress will undoubtedly cause more tragedies like this one and the family murder/suicide in California last week.

A brief story that I heard on the radio a few weeks ago said that the gunman passed all the required background checks, according to the pawn shop owner.

If the pawn shop followed all the rules, and there is no reason to believe they didn't, then yes, he passed the checks before the gun was sold to him.

This is a case in point that it's too easy to LEGALLY obtain a gun. That's the problem. Innocent people are dead because it's too easy to obtain a gun. Unless things change, it will only get worse.

The Oregonian reports the shooter had been hospitalized and treated for depression and suicide in the past. This is something that should throw up a red flag in the gun permit process.

And it wasn't all that easy for the shooter... he went in one day and looked at handguns in the $400 price range. He came back a day later to purchase, and because he was a resident alien he was required to show his greencard and 3 months utility bills to prove stable residency. He returned a couple days after that with all the needed info, filled out the forms, left for a few hours while background checks were completed, and came back and picked up his gun.

I'm not sure that anything other than a complete gun ban could have stopped him.

This was just a tragic turn of fate for some very unlucky kids, who crossed paths with an unstable young man who wanted to die.

Shyguy, thanks for starting this conversation. I agree with most of the Kunstler's assertions and share his belief that things will be far worse before they get better. While not specifically about oil, if you have not read it yet, Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein is altogether fascinating and scary too. We are both blessed and cursed to live in interesting times.

Everything Kunstler writes about brings about in me a great scare but also gives me hope at the same time for our future.

It will most likely entail a die off of humanity but is that not what we have already seen throughout our earth's history?

Ebbs and flows with cyclical changes?

Those are good questions. Perhaps I am cynical. Perhaps I am also giving human beings too much credit, but we seem to be adept at killing our own with an efficiency that the planet cannot rival.

Rats killed millions in Europe because the church was afraid of cats. At least that was what they said in public. I think that the general ignorance of our dire position can be chalked up to the same sort of institutional superstition and stupidity we had in the Dark Ages. The control of information did exactly what it was intended to do. It reduced the population, centralized the wealth, and all along, the entire cycle of starvation and plague was framed as punishment for evil. Whether it is a hurricane or a sexually transmitted disease or a famine, the same approach applies today.

The future is an unfolding and developing horror story. Assuming we do not nuke ourselves, the road ahead is still quite bleak. Killing through disease, starvation and war will be augmented by an ever more erratic climate. With global corporate control of natural resources like water and food, a Eugenic approach will be taken with little interference from the major powers. Even in the age of the internet, billions of dead people can still be explained away by blaming war, disaster, starvation and disease -- whether it is systematic or not.

In the vacuum of the American "baby boom" years, a deeply self-obsessed culture developed along with a greedy nihilist spirit. A sizable majority of kids discarded every important lesson from their elders that survived the Great Depression. Instead of reading Rachel Carson and changing the world, they read Ayn Rand and jerked off in their wallets. Instead of following the dream of Dr. King, breaking ancient bonds and freeing all Americans, they followed Ms. Steinem, created division and stalled the Civil Rights Movement for decades. People wanted to be amused, not creative. People wanted to be rich, pretty and powerful instead of humble, educated and helpful. People wanted to consume rather than nurture. People took care of an endless list of wants rather than a simple set of self-defined needs. As that generation finally loses their steely grasp on our cultural reality, we will find responsibility, equality, logic, conservation and science gaining traction once again.

We can still alter our ways fast enough to slow things down. However, until we are willing to use only what we truly need, do only what we truly love, treat everyone with respect and discipline ourselves, we will still be spiraling out of control. If we do not take back our paradigm to rebuild, restore and restructure the way we power and govern our communities, there will be no lasting change.

History will not look kindly upon "the greatest generation" ie the baby boomer generation. I think history ultimately look back and come to the conclusion that it was the "selfish generation"

As for global corporate control it will not materialize but rather end in a dramatic death.

Local, Commmunity, almost fuedel sp? system of life. Suburbs will be the slow death of America. Large metro population centers will face a big bang like implosion.

But there is hope in some large metropolitian cities surviving. I think that Portland shows real promise. And in general the Pacific Northwest specifically the Willamete Valley shows alot of promise as we creep into the Long Emergency.

F-you. Here's hoping the next dead kid is someone you know.

Nice. A new all time low for a post from Skeptical.

Actually, you've shot yourself in the foot Skybill. As I've said many times in this forum I support the right to bear arms. I was on the fence about handguns.

But now, after (1) having seen a kid killed at a gun show put on by a sheriff, surrounded by "gun experts", and no doubt dozens, if not hundreds of NRA members . . .

(2) a person goes into a pawn shop and legally buys a gun and heads downtown and fires away at humans . . .

(3) and wacko comments from gunnuts in forums (that's you Skybill)

All this has lead me to believe that these weapons are beyond the capability of humans to use them safely.

So now I support a complete ban on arms. Period. Only law officers and active military forces should be allowed to own guns and rifles.

I will vote for ALL gun control measures now, no questions asked.


The founding fathers messed up. They got too fancy with the wording. What they meant to say was, one has the right to bear muzzle loaders. Preoccupied the creation a brand new country, they didn't take the time to consider technicalogical advances and state the phrase correctly.