Waiting for the lights to go out...

[Abbe Osram]

probably not relevant? but the difference between humans and other animals is that
animals adapt to their natural environment and humans insist on destroying or changing the natural environment to suit our needs with out a thought for nature or future generations..

The problem with humans is not that they are creative, changing things, going new roads. The trouble is that humans don’t know what real love is, they are greedy and don’t know what to do with their lives other than creating drama and strive so that they know they exist in this world. I don’t think an animal adapts really, they are highly specialist and when their food supply is finished they die. There was a study made on one Canadian island where reindeers found an abundance of food but had no natural enemies. They multiplied and multiplied until the island could not carry them no more and after all the reindeer moss was eaten up they all died. Humans could have the chance to do something about their destiny but I believe we too multiply and multiply until this earth cant stand us anymore, we could change away from the cheap oil and the dependency of it but that would mean we have to change our lifestyle, philosophies etc and that I doubt will happen.

Yours
Abbe

 

[ilovemybed]

probably not relevant? but the difference between humans and other animals is that
animals adapt to their natural environment and humans insist on destroying or changing the natural environment to suit our needs with out a thought for nature or future generations..

Us, and Beavers!

 

[ilovemybed]

The problem with humans is not that they are creative, changing things, going new roads. The trouble is that humans don’t know what real love is, they are greedy and don’t know what to do with their lives other than creating drama and strive so that they know they exist in this world. I don’t think an animal adapts really, they are highly specialist and when their food supply is finished they die. There was a study made on one Canadian island where reindeers found an abundance of food but had no natural enemies. They multiplied and multiplied until the island could not carry them no more and after all the reindeer moss was eaten up they all died. Humans could have the chance to do something about their destiny but I believe we too multiply and multiply until this earth cant stand us anymore, we could change away from the cheap oil and the dependency of it but that would mean we have to change our lifestyle, philosophies etc and that I doubt will happen.

Yours
Abbe

This happens as a matter of course in nature. Normally there's a natural level of feedback which keeps in in check. Check out Predator/Prey curve.
Here's a start:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/livingthingsenvironment/0habitatsandpopsrev8.shtml
Sorry- bit of a simple link but all the rest I could find went into complicated maths!

 

[Abbe Osram]

This happens as a matter of course in nature. Normally there's a natural level of feedback which keeps in in check. Check out Predator/Prey curve.
Here's a start:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/livingthingsenvironment/0habitatsandpopsrev8.shtml
Sorry- bit of a simple link but all the rest I could find went into complicated maths!

Yes, predators could have balanced out the growing numbers of reindeers. If the island would have been small enough even the wolfs would have died after they had eaten all the reindeers.
Most likely they would have eaten then the weakest wolfs first. That happened on the Easter Island. After the people copped down all the trees on the island, they got in trouble supporting the growing population, they turned against each other, and Cannibalism was the result. Why I believe the light goes out for us has to do with the growing population of humans on a small island (earth), no predators around, (a global war is no option) and a specialization on cheap oil. What most people don’t understand is that we need "cheap" oil to feed the masses. Even fertilizers are produced with oil, cloth, transport, drugs, heating etc etc. There is no alternative in sight, which can successfully produce this amount of energy to support the growing demands of the ever-growing human race.

cheers
Abbe

 

[falling rain]

Very interesting thread.
Oil will run out and we will have to adapt because no realistic alternative has been found. People rely on electricity to run computers for example, and people now rely on computers totally. We need coal to produce electricity ( there are others like solar,wind and nuclear) but they are not developed enough to run countries on solely using them. Will they be by the time the oil has gone? All the porsche driving high flying business people you see whizzing through London feeling superior because of their important £150,000 pound a year jobs will be well and truly stuffed. If computers are made from oil products what will they be made of when oil runs out? Stone maybe?
I can't imagine for one minute that any of the wasters, dole and benifit claimants (not genuine cases such as disabled etc) but the idle masses we're inflicted with who live off our taxes and have no sense of responsibility we see hanging out down the shops or the managers directors etc of companies who rely solely on their laptops will learn to adapt. They will resort to robbery and violence to get what they need from whoever they can get it from. Look at the recent panic buying and ques for petrol when prices went up. It's a very complex issue with lots of variables but I know that the vast majority of our modern society will struggle to adapt because they are to used to the consumer life of easy foods in the microwave and plenty of money to spend on whatever they want they wouldn't know how to adapt and will seek the fast solution which will be to get what they need by hook or by crook from the neighbor who has.

 

[Abbe Osram]

Very interesting thread.
Oil will run out and we will have to adapt because no realistic alternative has been found. People rely on electricity to run computers for example, and people now rely on computers totally. We need coal to produce electricity ( there are others like solar,wind and nuclear) but they are not developed enough to run countries on solely using them. Will they be by the time the oil has gone? All the porsche driving high flying business people you see whizzing through London feeling superior because of their important £150,000 pound a year jobs will be well and truly stuffed. If computers are made from oil products what will they be made of when oil runs out? Stone maybe?
I can't imagine for one minute that any of the wasters, dole and benifit claimants (not genuine cases such as disabled etc) but the idle masses we're inflicted with who live off our taxes and have no sense of responsibility we see hanging out down the shops or the managers directors etc of companies who rely solely on their laptops will learn to adapt. They will resort to robbery and violence to get what they need from whoever they can get it from. Look at the recent panic buying and ques for petrol when prices went up. It's a very complex issue with lots of variables but I know that the vast majority of our modern society will struggle to adapt because they are to used to the consumer life of easy foods in the microwave and plenty of money to spend on whatever they want they wouldn't know how to adapt and will seek the fast solution which will be to get what they need by hook or by crook from the neighbor who has.

Most people don’t really get that the oil doesn’t have to run out first. When people hear that we still have oil in the ground for 30 years they lay back and think that we will find something else in 30 years time. But the real truth is that we are running out of "cheap" oil, while we are heavily overpopulated. That was only a slide problem before globalization; now with all the transports around the world and China taking over starting up an industrial revolution in their own nation, the time of “cheap” oil is over.

In the US, the average piece of food is transported
almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In
Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000
miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.


All our food is produced with the help of oil, tractors, pesticides, etc. How much will it cost us to rebuild our infrastructure to a level where our own nations are able to provide again for its people without much of transportations? Rebuilding too will cost a hell of lot oil.
Cheap stuff from china will be a thing of the past.
I can’t see how we slip a world economic collapse in a very short time much like the DDR collapsed or Armenia went bankrupt. It is possible that the west is falling down as quick as the iron curtain went down.

cheers
Abbe

 

[arctic hobo]

Very interesting thread.
Oil will run out and we will have to adapt because no realistic alternative has been found. People rely on electricity to run computers for example, and people now rely on computers totally. We need coal to produce electricity ( there are others like solar,wind and nuclear) but they are not developed enough to run countries on solely using them.

That's not quite right. The following countries either have nuclear power or will do very shortly:
Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Taiwan, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Korea DPR (North), Korea RO (South), Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, and Vietnam.
Beyond this there are countries like Norway, (which has 98.5% of electricity from hydroelectrics. Having seen the dams, I can tell you they are nothing like the eyesores people envision. On the contrary, I have often walked over one completely oblivious to its existence. Anyway) that need not even contemplate changing power sources. Nuclear power will last, wisely or not, for a long time, and will proliferate greatly on the loss of coal.
More of a question, however, is those "developing" countries that, while they do not have great reliance on electricity, can only afford coal-fired power stations and the like. This might halt, if not reverse, their development.
And the price of electricity will rise enormously, no doubt. Take the state of California - it does not generate any electricity itself. Will the dependence ruin it and Silicon Valley?
There are some homeowners that have so much home electricity that they supplement the national grid. If people want to get worried, it's fairly simple to see what to do.

 

[running bare]

nucleur power may last but the disposal of spent rods that remain radioactive for hundreds of years is not a viable solution in my opinion as for wind turbines on land well if they are to produce ample power then they take up more land then agriculture will need more land for crops and livestock! which in turn will require cutting down woodland which in turn increases the co2 levels. dont get me wrong i use technology computers,tv,power tools, petrol. its going to take a severe change in peoples attitudes to sort the problem out even politicians only pay it lip service,, britain for one currently produces 716 million tonnes of greenhouse gases a year thats more than the kyoto agreement allocation but the british government is asking to be allowed to produce a further 20million tonnes a year!!! the governments need to take the problems more seriously after all did T.B. not say that britain was going to lead the fight against global warming ( as long as we can produce more presumably) damn this is getting toooooooooooo heavy my head hurts

 

[Abbe Osram]

That's not quite right. The following countries either have nuclear power or will do very shortly:
Argentina, Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Taiwan, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Korea DPR (North), Korea RO (South), Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, and Vietnam.
Beyond this there are countries like Norway, (which has 98.5% of electricity from hydroelectrics. Having seen the dams, I can tell you they are nothing like the eyesores people envision. On the contrary, I have often walked over one completely oblivious to its existence. Anyway) that need not even contemplate changing power sources. Nuclear power will last, wisely or not, for a long time, and will proliferate greatly on the loss of coal.
More of a question, however, is those "developing" countries that, while they do not have great reliance on electricity, can only afford coal-fired power stations and the like. This might halt, if not reverse, their development.
And the price of electricity will rise enormously, no doubt. Take the state of California - it does not generate any electricity itself. Will the dependence ruin it and Silicon Valley?
There are some homeowners that have so much home electricity that they supplement the national grid. If people want to get worried, it's fairly simple to see what to do.

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.
How do you solve transportations? Even building new type of electric cars will need oil for the factories and materials.

cheers
Abbe

 

[bilko]

I have to say that i'm with you on basically everthing you've said here Abbe.
Even if we develop other energy technologiesto the point that they can sustain basic needs of continents there will still be the need for transportation.
Very interesting to read about the distance produce travels before it reaches the plate. I think in order for people to survive as they do now they will have to be split populations. Each one fending for themselves. The numbers of each community will have to be low because of the area we like to cover. A self sustainig community of say 5000 people will need an area of how large to BE self sustaining before the outskirts start to suffer. Suffer because of the pure logistics involved and wasted in supporting the furthest members.?
Lets say that community occupies 100 miles with the infrastructure needed. How many more miles is an acceptable wasteage of fuel or current resources to sustain the outer rim? 10, 20 50? By the time you get to 200 miles you may find that it costs the equivilant of 10 peoples needs to reach 1 person on the 200th mile.
People are in love with their motorcars and it will be a long time before we stop wasting fuel. Like Abbe says, we should start using the remaining fuel now to look for future ways to sustain us. It's no good when we're down to 10 years worth and still driving porsches. I don't actually think the governments care anyway as most of them will be dead.

 

[arctic hobo]

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.
How do you solve transportations? Even building new type of electric cars will need oil for the factories and materials.

cheers
Abbe

I quite agree; I was only trying to point out that power stations will probably not disappear. However, there are plenty of alternatives to petrol in road power at least, from chip fat to sugar cane and alcohol.