# America Unsustainable...



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2005)

This thread has convinced me that the American Way of Life is unsustainable. I am curious as to what people on Martial Talk would be willing to give up in there lives in order to better live in a future of constrained resource and energy supply.

For example, would you...

1. Buy a smaller house?
2. Share a home with another family?
3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?
4. Drive one small car?
5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city?
6. Live less then a mile from work?
7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands?
8. Would you change careers?
9. Would you use more public transit?
10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused?
11. Join an organic commune?
12. Start a farmer's coop?
13. Vacation closer to home?
14. Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families?
15. Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families?
16. Etc...

I think I could do everything on this list.  What would you add or subtract?  Why?

The goal here is to cut your energy usage and your waste by 50% to 75%. What would you be willing sacrifice in order to accomplish this goal? What sacrifices couldn't you make? Do you think that you would have the same "quality" of life when you have accomplished this goal?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Bammx2 (May 17, 2005)

1) yes

2) no
3)yes
4) does a motorcycle count? yes anyway
5)no,gardens tend to suck in the city.
6)Depends
7)yes
8)Depends
9)yes
10)yes
11)no
12)yes
13)vacation?
14)yes
15)maybe


----------



## ginshun (May 17, 2005)

1. Buy a smaller house?
 Its not very big as is, so no.

 2. Share a home with another family?
 No

 3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?
 Already do

 4. Drive one small car?
 I drive a Jeep Wrangler, I could switch, but I will always drive a 4WD

 5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city?
 I live right in the middle of town

 6. Live less then a mile from work?
 Hopefully, sometime within the next 10 years, that is the plan

 7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands?
 Already do

 8. Would you change careers?
 That will go along with the living less than a mile from work

 9. Would you use more public transit?
 No

 10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused?
 I try

 11. Join an organic commune?
 No

 12. Start a farmer's coop?
 No, but I will shop at the farmers market

 13. Vacation closer to home?
 No

 14. Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families?
 Sounds good, that is kind of what me, my family and a couple friends do with the roto-tiller.

 15. Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families?
 No.

 16. Etc...
 I do what I can.  Could I do more?  Probably.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2005)

My list is just a template.  Feel free to create your own.  Think critically, do you think that you could cut your energy usage and your waste by 50-75%?  Is this possible?  If so, how would you do it?  

BTW - if you take a look at the average total calories one uses in a day and assign/assume values for the stuff on my list, I'm coming up with only a 30% reduction.

When I have more time, I post some numbers...


----------



## OUMoose (May 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Buy a smaller house?
> 2. Share a home with another family?
> 3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?
> 4. Drive one small car?
> ...


1) I don't own a house, but I also don't believe in living in some huge extravagant domicile.
2)  No.  I can barely stand having a roomate, let alone a whole family.
3)  Sure, if there's sufficient room.
4)  If I could fit in a small car, sure!  6'6" 380 != fitting in 99% of foreign cars.
5)  Yes.
6)  Yes.
7)  Depending on time constraints, yes.
8)  If there was something decent available, yes.
9)  Yes.
10) Yes.
11) An Organic Commune?  Care to elaborate a little further?
12) Is that like a chicken coop?  Please see #3
13) Vacation closer to home.  Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the vacation?  I have to say no to this one.
14) Was this a communally-purchased item, or one you're lending out to people?  If the former, yes.  The latter?  maybe.
15) Again, if it was communally-purchased, yes.  However, I have trouble lending my vehicle to anyone, and I don't like to drive others cars, so No if not.
16) I would look into technology for lighting using fiber optics and natural light reflection as opposed to incandescents.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2005)

An organic commune and a farmer's co-op kind of go hand in hand.  The short of it is this...

1.  Multiple families build a group home and work a plot of land to produce food _organically_.

2.  A farmer's co-op is a place where families that grow a lot of food can go to trade the excess for stuff they don't grow.


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

I think you will find the "communal" theme easier to apply in theory rather than practice. I would like to see the scene when everybody has to get to work and theres only one snowblower....it's hard enough for my family to "share" one bathroom.

As to moving back into the City..many people moved out for a reason. Namely lead flying through the air at high velocity.


----------



## ginshun (May 17, 2005)

Something else I would really like to look into when I get a little more money for home improvements saved up is solar panels.  I need to work out how long they would take to pay for themselves and see if they are really worth it to me.  I know if you get enough of them that you can produce more electricity than you use, the power company will actually drain the excess power from you and actually _pay you_ for the extra every month.  That would be sweet.


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

How about starting with insulating your home and buying energy efficient appliances for a start...little more realistic in the short run.


----------



## OUMoose (May 17, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> An organic commune and a farmer's co-op kind of go hand in hand.  The short of it is this...
> 
> 1.  Multiple families build a group home and work a plot of land to produce food _organically_.
> 
> 2.  A farmer's co-op is a place where families that grow a lot of food can go to trade the excess for stuff they don't grow.


Ahhh.  I understand now, and thanks for the clarification.

However, I don't that an anachronistic view is what we should be striving toward, but a more efficient and technologically advanced one.  I do agree that our current level of consumption is unsustainable, but to think that all the years I've put into getting these quirky little boxes with the funny buttons to do my bidding without question will be totally useless is a little discouraging.  

Lets just hope the controlling corps realize this and start releasing some of the technology they've been supressing over time, so we don't have to trade our PC's for Ploughshares.


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

Yeah..if there is money to be made, someone will think up a solution. As long as there is more money to be made with the current method...less likely.


----------



## Eldritch Knight (May 17, 2005)

This would be my ideal way of life, actually. No wasted resources, everyone taking exactly what they need. Aside from all the resource-saving benefits, our society would grow in that everyone would have to start looking out for everyone else. A pure socialism, so to speak.


----------



## ginshun (May 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How about starting with insulating your home and buying energy efficient appliances for a start...little more realistic in the short run.


 Obviously, minimizing your power intake as much as possible would be the first step.  No incandecent bulbs, Energy Star rated appliances only, no electric heat, stuff like that.  It would be nice to be self sufficient as far as power goes though.

 Someday maybe.


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

There will ALWAYS be people "taking more than what they need".....no matter the political structure. Call me a cynic, but I believe history has shown what "human nature" really is over and over again.


----------



## ginshun (May 17, 2005)

Damn dude, based on last months energy bill, where I live and the first website I looked on, it would cost me about 60 grand to set myself up with a solar panel system to match my current comsumption.

 Scratch that plan.


----------



## Gemini (May 17, 2005)

The only ones I wouldn't (as apposed to couldn't) do is 2 & 5.

1. _Buy a smaller house? _No problem. Never much cared about such things anyway.
2. _Share a home with another family? _It's hard enough putting up with the people there already. (and I love them).
3. _Plant a garden to supplement your diet? _Yuck. No green thumb here, but okay.
4. _Drive one small car?_ I have a supercharged Mustang. That's pretty small in a relative sorta way, right?
5. _Move out of the suburbs and back into the city? _I shared a cubicle with the cockroaches once already. I'd live in a tent before I moved back into the city.
6. _Live less then a mile from work? _I wish. That's an easy one.
7. _Walk, ride, or ski to do errands? _Sure. I love exercise. Hell, I used to walk 20 miles to school everyday...In my barefeet.
8. _Would you change careers?_ In a heart beat. I still don't know what I wanna do when I grow up.
9. _Would you use more public transit? _Public transit never bothered me. I just sleep.
10. _Would you reuse anything that could be reused? _I do that now.
11. _Join an organic commune? _Oh...alright. If I haveta. But I won't like it. Such a '70's thing...
12. _Start a farmer's coop? _Now that sounds like fun.
13. _Vacation closer to home? _Any vacation is good if you can get 'em.
14. _Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families? _I share everything now.
15. _Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families?_ see 14.


Honestly, I would live like the Amish if I could bring my family, Dojang and Instructor with me. Everything else is gravy....


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

Kind of hard to live in a city and farm.....


----------



## evenflow1121 (May 17, 2005)

1. Buy a smaller house? Yes

2. Share a home with another family? No, privacy is too important for me

3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet? Yes

4. Drive one small car? Yes

5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city? Maybe

6. Live less then a mile from work? Maybe

7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands? Yes

8. Would you change careers? No 

9. Would you use more public transit? Maybe

10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused? Yes

11. Join an organic commune? No

12. Start a farmer's coop? No

13. Vacation closer to home? Yes

14. Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families? No

15. Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families? No
16. Etc...

Waste a lot less food and products, just the buy what you need.


----------



## TonyM. (May 17, 2005)

Gee.... my cadillac escalade seems a little small. Should I get a humvee? Sure wish we still had tetra etyl.   Oops, sorry I got some sarcasm on myself.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 17, 2005)

Some are not really practical for everyone.  Public Transport is really only useable for certain people.  It could be improved greatly and get more accepted.  

 But making changes costs money.. which is the issue here.  Right now oil is the cheapest option, once that stops others will take over.

 But no car is almost impossible right now for some people.  If you have kids that play sports and need to go all over the city that can't be done by public transport as it exists.  Now if teams where to all get there own bus and transport the team from there home field as a whole that might help.

 Innovation follows need, not the other way around.  So until it is needed, it isn't going to happen.  My guess is that you are right, our current energy usage can't be sustained much longer.  BUT, new technologies will replace the existing ones and things will hit a bump while everyone converts, then end up better.  That's just how we progress

 It's not just our resources that are being burnt out, so are us people.  We work longer hours, everyone works, and yet still we never have everything we "need".

 I do think we will hit a turning point... but perhaps a slightly different take on where it will hit.  Media and image are too powerful.  What does a person need a SUV to drive in to work everyday in?  Not much beyond the image that comes from it...

 But that is what the media tell us we "should" be trying to get.  Why would a couple person need a 3000 sq ft house in the suburbs? Wow, thats a lot of cleaning....

 A big screen plasma tv is great... but overkill for sitting around watching MASH reruns by yourself... in other words 95% of peoples viewing.  Thats one expensive toy for the odd PPV party or Superbowl.  Would almost be cheaper just to do to the events then buy some of the tv's available...

 Anyone remember doing word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, web browsing, etc on a Pentium 1?  It worked fine, so why do so many people that only do this need Pentium 4's with 160gb hard drives and 1gb of ram?  

 And I do think the media is a big part of it.  It projects the image that these things are "needed", or else you've "fallen behind".  

 Will our lifestyle be different in 50 years?  of course, its quite different now then it was 50 years ago.  Change is nothing new, and nothing to be afraid of.  We may hit a big bump, but we'll get through it and everyone will be happy, possibly even more so 

 But the projecting fear about the demise of our world is sure not going to help, that is the problem.  It is fear and uncertainty that feeds this problem.  People fear being looked down upon so they by a big SUV, they fear being thought fat so they turn into a anerexic, They work so hard to "keep up appearences" that they don't excercise and eat poorly... so much for appearances   But then this causes more fear so they buy stupid excercise equipment that does nothing but costs a lot....

 Just look at a ab machine commercial, basically they tell you that doing crunches is bad and will do more damage then good.  Plus it is too hard so why bother.  Excercise is made out to be a expensive luxury that requires specific scheduling and financial commitment.  So you got to work more to afford to be able to excercise which makes you to burnt out to actually excercise so instead you grab a whopper combo and call it a day...

 ok... end rant... I was bored...


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 17, 2005)

Uh...what you're describing is consumerism. It is characteristic of advanced capitalist economies, which must try to endlessly grow by a) creating new markers, b) creating new desires.

In other words, the problem we're having is that crazy consumption is integral to our whole economic structure.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> How about starting with insulating your home and buying energy efficient appliances for a start...little more realistic in the short run.


God, I feel dumb, I didn't even think of that.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Kind of hard to live in a city and farm.....


Maybe not on the scale that one thinks of a farm nowadays, but, supplementation is surely possible.  You'd be surprised what you can grow at a high yield in a limited amount of space...


----------



## kid (May 17, 2005)

1. Buy a smaller house?  Sure
2. Share a home with another family?    As long as i get to pic them
3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?     I would like that
4. Drive one small car?     Yeah
5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city?     That would be fun.
6. Live less then a mile from work?     Not sure about that
7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands?      This would make it more interesting
8. Would you change careers?      Possibly
9. Would you use more public transit?       sure
10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused?     yup
11. Join an organic commune?     yeah
12. Start a farmer's coop?    yes
13. Vacation closer to home?       yes and no i want to see alot more than minnesota.
14. Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families?     Sure
15. Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families?      As long as i get to drive.
16. Better insulation for your house.      yes
17. NRG efficient appliances.     yes




kid


----------



## Ray (May 17, 2005)

Those sound like great ideas.  It had been my plan to breed my offspring to be smaller than me so that they could comfortably using less resources---I don't know what it is about these youngsters but they 4 out of 5 grew to be over 6 ft tall.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 17, 2005)

I think a lot of it varies.

I mean, I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which gets hot in the summer sometimes, but we use a swamp cooler and open windows, which probably uses less resources than a typical A/C.  Winter heating is probably lower energy usage than many places as it doesn't get *that* cold.

Less..we have six kids, which sorta puts a minimal size on housing and transportation, and we are pretty much at that point.  I work from my house and we homeschool so our transporation usage is probably lower than most.  

However, we are very close to a grocery store and I drive often for those "pick up a few items" that I could easily do on a bike.
---

As far as economic impact, one that that occurs to me is that there is a difference between economy and energy.  I mean, if I get my house of the grid and go solar...well, someone has to build the solar panals and sell them and maintain them and...someone still has a chance to make a lot of money based on my buying habits.  All they've done is change *what* I buy or spend money on; a dishwasher or an energy efficient dishwasher.


----------



## dubljay (May 17, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> There will ALWAYS be people "taking more than what they need".....no matter the political structure. Call me a cynic, but I believe history has shown what "human nature" really is over and over again.


 Haha some one should have explained that to Karl Marx when he wrote the _Communist Manifesto_.

 To answer your question Upnorth...

   I feel you are right about _current_ American lifestyle being unsustainable.  This is not to say that we cannot adapt and change.  There are signs that things are beginning to change.  To be blunt about it, but I feel that most Americans (including many within my own family) are too self centered and ignorant to realize the complexity and difficulty of our lifestyles.  The average American does not pay attention to the government until it is time to vote.  What they miss are lobbying opportunities that can bring about reform.  This is not to say that every American is like this, as I know many are not.  I receive weekly emails from ASES (American Solar Energy Society) that discuss not only technological advances in alternative energies, but urge people to write senators, sign petitions that will bring about reforms in energy legislature.  However many Americans are ignorant to the legislature because they figure if there is immediately wrong then there is no problem.  Further, more many people I have spoken to on this subject feel that they do not have to act as there are people already doing something about it.  Simply said there are not enough people acting, it is going to take action on everyone's part.  As I said though, there are signs of change.  There is a new university being built in Merced, California that will be offering the first degrees in Alternative Energies.  As it stands, I think the only other college to offer something remotely close to this is MIT.  There are similar colleges under construction and in planning in Florida as well.  These college programs are the first step in bringing about changes.  Until it becomes more cost effective to use alternative energies in place of fossil fuels, the American public will resist change tooth and nail.  This has been my experience with people... as I said this does not mean that all Americans are like this, but from what I have seen... they are.

  We can adapt and change our ways, but it is not going to happen over night.  It will take more work than many think.  There will be some that will resist the change despite the clear necessity and advantages.  One major problem is that the younger (college age) demographic does not vote.  The babyboomer generation is still the main voting demographic, and look at the lifestyle they grew up in.  Major change is not going to happen until the current generation gets off their collective, lazy, self centered butts and does something about it.  (This is not to say that the babyboomers don't care, or not capable of change, but their way of life has been engrained into them).

 Just my opinion and I could be wrong.

 -Josh


----------



## Cryozombie (May 17, 2005)

I gave up using a snowblower.  I use an old-fashioned shovel.  I also use an electric lawn mower, to conserve fuel.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 17, 2005)

_
I gave up using a snowblower. I use an old-fashioned shovel. I also use an electric lawn mower, to conserve fuel._

This has me curious about what the total impact is.   I mean, if you use less 'gas' in a electric mower, but the oil is still burnt generating the electricity?  Do some of these all even out regardless of how you do it?


----------



## dubljay (May 17, 2005)

In a sense it is more efficient with an electric mower as electic engines are more efficient than gas.


----------



## Tgace (May 17, 2005)

Eh..I didnt use much more than 1 gallon of gas in my snowblower all winter.


----------



## digitalronin (May 17, 2005)

1. Buy a smaller house?
No I lived in a smaller house, prefer the mobility a larger home provides.

 2. Share a home with another family? NO


 3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?  Do that already, thats the advantage of having a larger home and yard.


 4. Drive one small car?  My main car is a small car, less on gas and easier to park.


5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city?  Hell no, I'm a minority, the city to us is like volunteering to live in downtown beruit.

 6. Live less then a mile from work?
  No prob.

 7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands?  It hasnt snowed here in decades. If the job was a few blocks away i would walk.  Erands yes, if don't have lug back heavy bags.


 8. Would you change careers? if it paid more.


 9. Would you use more public transit? No way, don't like sitting next to sweaty ppl on buses.

 10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused? Do that already.

 11. Join an organic commune?  What i grow is for me and my blood, everyone else can fend for themselves.

 12. Start a farmer's coop?  If it would raise  a suffecient profit .

 13. Vacation closer to home?  How boring.

 14. Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families?
 no, all the tools would get stolen eventually.

 15. Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families?
 yes, if i don't have to pay for the vehicle


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (May 17, 2005)

1. Yeah, a small house would work fine for me.

2. Depends on how trusting I am of the other family, but if I know and trust them well enough, and the living arrangements would suit it, yeah.

3. No, way too much time and effort, considering that I don't eat too many salads anyway.  

4. I've got limits on how small a vehicle I can use, so the answer to this would probably be no.

5. Maybe.  

6. If there was suitable housing, sure.  

7. If I could.

8. How would my choice in careers, theoretically, help reduce energy use?  

9. Yes, again assuming that it's practical.  

10. Yeah (*thinks about how many pickle jars have become sugar and flour containers*)

11. A what?  

12. I'll leave that to the farmers. 

13. The few times I actually vacation makes this a no.  

14. Sure.

15. Probably not, but I'd be more than willing to carpool as an alternative.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This thread has convinced me that the American Way of Life is unsustainable. I am curious as to what people on Martial Talk would be willing to give up in there lives in order to better live in a future of constrained resource and energy supply.





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> For example, would you...





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 1. Buy a smaller house?


Mine is small enough.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 2. Share a home with another family?


Not a chance.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?


Why not.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 4. Drive one small car?


Drive a more fuel efficient car, not a smaller one (i'm 6'5 for god sakes).


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city?


I wouldn't touch the city with a ten meter cattle prod. I hate the suburbs too. It's all the city dwellers and suburbanites that are using all the resources. Those of us from the country have always understood conservation.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 6. Live less then a mile from work?


Not likely.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands?


Walking and bicycle riding isn't bad.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 8. Would you change careers?


Nope.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 9. Would you use more public transit?


We don't have public transit where I live.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused?


Sure, saves me money.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 11. Join an organic commune?


I love that term "commune". Nope.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 12. Start a farmer's coop?


 Nope.


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 13. Vacation closer to home?


Vacation, what's that? 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> upnorthkyosa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Eh..I didnt use much more than 1 gallon of gas in my snowblower all winter.


I use more then a few grams of body fat with my snow shovel each winter...

btw - this thread has been pretty great so far!


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I use more then a few grams of body fat with my snow shovel each winter...
> 
> btw - this thread has been pretty great so far!


The last thing I want to do when I come home from working all night is shovel for 45 min to an hour....It would be like working out then trying to go to bed.


----------



## Franc0 (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This thread has convinced me that the American Way of Life is unsustainable. I am curious as to what people on Martial Talk would be willing to give up in there lives in order to better live in a future of constrained resource and energy supply.
> 
> For example, would you...
> 
> ...



1.Yes (I already live in an apt. so a small house would be an improvement)
2.No ( I like to walk around in my underwear)
3.Yes (I likes my greens)
4.No (I love my muscle car)
5.No (Too much crime for my kids)
6.I already do
7.I already do
8.If it means more money, yes. If not, then no.
9.No (Too many a-holes & stinky people ride the bus)
10.I do beleive in recycling, but thats about it.
11.No freakin way! I drink beer, eat BB-Q steaks and shoot guns. :mp5: 
12.No time between training and work.
13.I live in Vegas, so yeah. There's lot's 'o places to have fun here!
14. a) My neighbor never gave me back the drill I loaned him :2xBird2: 
     b) Again, I live in Vegas, we don't need snowplows here :ultracool 
15.NO ONE drives my muscle car, not even my wife! :whip: 
16. You THINK you could do all those, but WOULD you really?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

masterfinger said:
			
		

> 16. You THINK you could do all those, but WOULD you really?


Yeah, I would...I would do most of those things of my own volition because I believe that using/consuming less is a good thing to do.  I would do everything on the list if life as I know it became more difficult to live as I know it.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> 1.  But making changes costs money.. which is the issue here. Right now oil is the cheapest option, once that stops others will take over.
> 
> 2.  Innovation follows need, not the other way around. So until it is needed, it isn't going to happen. My guess is that you are right, our current energy usage can't be sustained much longer. BUT, new technologies will replace the existing ones and things will hit a bump while everyone converts, then end up better. That's just how we progress.


There are a couple of misconceptions in this post that I want to address...

*1.  Not all energy sources are created equal*.

Oil is liquid sunshine.  

Fossil fuels are like a battery in the earth that we have tapped into.  Sunlight, collected by the most efficient collectors ever _created_, was turned into carbon compounds by photosynthesis.  Over millions of years, these compounds built up in areas, were buried, and chemically reduced by heat and pressure.  

The advantages of fossil fuels are numerous...  

1.  They give off a huge amount of energy.  
2.  They are highly portable.  
3.  They are (have been) easily accessed.  
4.  They are (have been) numerous.  
5.  They are (have been) cheap to use.

No other forms of energy compare to fossil fuels.  None.  They literally are the best energy source ever discovered by humans and their _cheap abundance_ is what allows us to live the life we do.  The fact that these resources are finite IS what makes our society unsustainable.

*2.  Innovation does not always follow need.*

History is full of derilects where this was not the case.  In fact, it is more common for innovation NOT to follow need.  Think about how resistant to change people are for a moment...

It is foolish to depend on technology that doesn't exist to provide for unsustainable needs.  Especially when nothing is being done to develop the technology.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

*Food Production*

If you look at my list, I seem to be very concerned with food production.  The reason for this is that our current methods of food production are unsustainable.  Sustainable food production is when you put in one calorie of energy and get at least one calorie of food in return.  Our current ratio with our current system requires 10 calories of energy for every one calorie of food.

Most of this energy in comes from oil.  

Industrial agriculture is a system of large corporate industrialized farms that depend on machinery, fertilizer, pestacides, and transportation in order to function.  In fact, every peice of produce you buy at the store has taken an average journey of 1,500 miles before it gets to the store.  Organic items included.

As demand on fossil fuels from the world increases and the supply of fossil fuels decreases, the prices will rise sharply.  And industrial agriculture will be one of the first victims.  The unsustainability of it, will put the system permanently out of business.  It is already feeling the squeeze...our government subsidizes agriculture more then any other industry.  It can't continue.

Thus, in our future, we will see agriculture return to prominance in our lives.  We won't have giant farms that depend on fossil fuels to produce our food.  More _people_ will be required to produce food for our population...many many more people.  I imagine that the family farm will once again rise to prominance...In the meantime, our economy will pay for the destruction of our efficient decentralized system.  

The old will become new.

With that in mind, the native born farmer/labor class will be reborn.  Those disaffected by the fossil fuel blowout of the late 20th and early 21st century will comprise this class, relegated to bits of land owned from far away.  These people will go from suburbs to serfdom in the span of their lives, suffering from their lack of forethought...finally laying bare the irony of capitalism.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Franc0 (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> "Not all energy sources are created equal"
> "Oil is liquid sunshine."
> "Fossil fuels are like a battery in the earth that we have tapped into."
> "The advantages of fossil fuels are numerous..."
> ...



With thinking like that, you are the oil industries best friend, and it's thinking like that the keeps the greedy oil companies in power, and innovations in non-petroleum based energy at a standstill.
I'm guessing either you or your parents own stocks in a petroleum conglomerate. You say you're willing to do the things you originally listed, but your views are totally *** backwards when it comes to backing it up.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

masterfinger said:
			
		

> With thinking like that, you are the oil industries best friend, and it's thinking like that the keeps the greedy oil companies in power, and innovations in non-petroleum based energy at a standstill.
> I'm guessing either you or your parents own stocks in a petroleum conglomerate. You say you're willing to do the things you originally listed, but your views are totally *** backwards when it comes to backing it up.


Actually, I'm saying Oil has no future...and that means trouble because of nature of oil.  This way of life that we call normal cannot last and if you actually study alternative technologies...none of them can supply our current levels of energy consumption.  None of them.  Not even close.  This will change everything about how you live your life...plan for it.


----------



## ginshun (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> *Food Production*
> 
> If you look at my list, I seem to be very concerned with food production. The reason for this is that our current methods of food production are unsustainable. Sustainable food production is when you put in one calorie of energy and get at least one calorie of food in return. Our current ratio with our current system requires 10 calories of energy for every one calorie of food.
> 
> ...


 For some reason, I doubt very much that this will ever happen. Regardless of how the farming is done, the amount of land that is being farmed now will need to contiue to be farmed in order to support our population. To keep producing food at current levels without using modern techniques like machinary, fertilizers and pesticides is impossible. Organic farming just plain can't be done on the scale that you are talking about. So unless there is some major disaster that greatly reduces our need for food, your scenario is not a realistic one in my eyes.

 Now maybe the disaster in question will be that oil runs out, and the farming all of a sudden can't be done like it is now, in which case millions of people starve to death and the need for food is reduced. I really don't believe this will happen.



			
				upnorthkyoso said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm saying Oil has no future...and that means trouble because of nature of oil. This way of life that we call normal cannot last and if you actually study alternative technologies...none of them can supply our current levels of energy consumption. None of them. Not even close. This will change everything about how you live your life...plan for it.


 I personally believe that the only reason that alternative energy sorces are not more widespread is that they don't need to be...yet. Once people realize that the oil is running out, and it is well established and agreed upon by the scientific community exactly when it will happen, the developement of alternate energies will greatly increase.  Sure they can't produce our current need for energy in there current forms, but to think that alternative energy won't improve greatly by the time the oil runs out is foolish.  Once the need becomes eminantly evident, the reasearch will ramp up like you wouldn't believe.
 Now, granted this should probably be happening already, and by the time it does start, it might be too late, who knows? I fully believe that eventually our society will function at pretty close to the same level it does now without oil. Now, this probably won't happen in our lifetime, and there might be a huge crash in energy availability before it does, but someday we will get there. If mankind in general plans on making it, it has too. Now dont get me wrong, and think that I am saying this transition will be a smooth one, quite the contrary, sooner or later some major **** is going to hit the fan. 
  Humans can make great strides in a very short times ... when they are forced to.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> For some reason, I doubt very much that this will ever happen. Regardless of how the farming is done, the amount of land that is being farmed now will need to contiue to be farmed in order to support our population. To keep producing food at current levels without using modern techniques like machinary, fertilizers and pesticides is impossible. Organic farming just plain can't be done on the scale that you are talking about. So unless there is some major disaster that greatly reduces our need for food, your scenario is not a realistic one in my eyes.
> 
> Now maybe the disaster in question will be that oil runs out, and the farming all of a sudden can't be done like it is now, in which case millions of people starve to death and the need for food is reduced. I really don't believe this will happen.


India and China have five times as many people as we do and the produce most of their food by hand...

We will get by just fine with a little hard work.  The end result is that there will be less food, less options, and people will probably be thinner.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> I personally believe that the only reason that alternative energy sorces are not more widespread is that they don't need to be...yet. Once people realize that the oil is running out, and it is well established and agreed upon by the scientific community exactly when it will happen, the developement of alternate energies will greatly increase. Sure they can't produce our current need for energy in there current forms, but to think that alternative energy won't improve greatly by the time the oil runs out is foolish. Once the need becomes eminantly evident, the reasearch will ramp up like you wouldn't believe.


Think about the efficiency of photosynthesis.  Think about the implications of Ohm's Law when it comes to transporting energy.  Then, think about exactly what alternative energy sources are trying to do.  

These technologies are trying to capture the latent energy on the earth in the form of wind, rain, and sunshine.

Plants have already done this and fossil fuels are the _accumulation_ of this energy over _millions_ of years.  

The differences in the amounts of energy produced are not off by just a little, they are off by orders of magnitude.


----------



## ginshun (May 18, 2005)

Hmmmm... maybe you are right, only time will tell I suppose.  I think most of America could do with being a little thinner.


----------



## Tgace (May 18, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Yeah, I would...I would do most of those things of my own volition because I believe that using/consuming less is a good thing to do.


Then why arent you.....


----------



## Cryozombie (May 18, 2005)

Well... as far as food production goes, you know the song...

"I can skin a Buck, I can run a trout line, and a country boy can survive"

I may not be a country boy, but I learned well from them.


----------



## ginshun (May 18, 2005)

Another thing to consider about going back to farming without the machinary or whatever is this. With a little resaech it can be found that the US uses a larger amount of land than either China or India (as per upnorthkyoso's example) for agriculture.

  Numbers I got were 494,000 sq. miles for India, 555,000 sq. miles for China and 678,000 square miles for the US.

  Now consider the amount of people from each country employed due to agriculture.

  China ~ 50% of the population or ~650 million people
  India ~ 62% of the population or ~660 million people
  USA ~ 21% of the population 0r ~ 62 million people

 So take those stats for what you will, you will have to trust me on them (or don't, whatever) because I looked through a ton of websites to find them.

 Does it prove that we are more or less efficient? I don't really know, there are a lot of things that these stats don't address, the amount of products actually produced for one, how much is used domestically and how much is exported for another, and the list goes on and on. Its would seem at a glance, that we produce a lot more per person, but probaly less per amount of area.

 What seems to be evident is that agriculture in the US simply can't work the way it does in those countries. Their resepective agriculture industries employ twice as many people each as there are in the US total. 

 I don't know what my point is exactly, just food for thought I suppose. Maybe all it proves is that upnorthkyoso is right, and our current way of living is completley unsustainable. Without oil anyway or some equally efficeint form of power anyway.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Then why arent you.....


It takes time and planning to do some of this stuff. 

That is why major efforts in conservation can never happen quickly. If people think that we are just suddenly going to change when it becomes to cost prohibitive, they have got another thing coming. We've got all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak. 90% of our lives is impacted directly or indirectly by the price of oil. _Everything_ about our way of life is predicated on waste. 

Cutting our consumption by 50% is very difficult, but that is the only way alternative energy sources will become affordable. It might take me 5-10 years to accomplish this...Ginshun pointed out that at his current level of consumption, it would take an investment of at least 60,000 dollars just to power his house.  THAT is an important point to keep in mind.

There are those who want to pretend like nothing is happening and do nothing but drive their Hummers 40 miles to work.  They will just have to lump it. When fossil fuel prices skyrocket, they will be left with a bunch of stuff they can't afford to use and no resources or time to make the changes they need.

The bottom line is that they just won't have the resources to make the changes. Then what?


----------



## ginshun (May 18, 2005)

I just want to give credit to this thread for being awesome.  It has made me think about a lot of things.


----------



## psi_radar (May 18, 2005)

Being able to produce the same foods wouldn't be problem, the US has plenty of arable land. The real problem will be getting it to where it needs to go within the margin of cost vs. maximum price. At what point will people stop paying 50$ a pound for Wyoming beef or 40$ Mexican canteloupes and eat locally grown, efficiently produced, nutrient-rich soy products instead? The answer is, as long as it's economically feasible, cause beef and winter fruit are tasty. 

All you need to know about humanity's attitudes toward consumerism and the environment can be discovered at a buffet table. Generally, people take more than they need. If they are required to pay a la carte, suddenly their plates aren't quite so heaping.

If there's a big oil crash in which suddenly the resource is just removed, then yes, worldwide starvation and chaos will likely ensue. More likely, however, is that as all these resources gradually become more expensive, people will eschew certain luxuries to support a more basic quality of life. We americans love cars, and man, I'll miss the V-8, but we will get over it to maintain a safe, secure, and happy quality of life for our loved ones. Tofu burger anyone?

One practical way to conserve energy, oil in particular, would be to promote telecommuting. We use 2/3 of our oil in our vehicles. Provide initial tax breaks to companies who set up information systems that allow for working at home, and smaller "hub" offices rather than one large, centralized business space. This reduces commuting drastically and supports more localized services networks, which we'll need anyway as resources become more scarce.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 18, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Being able to produce the same foods wouldn't be problem, the US has plenty of arable land. The real problem will be getting it to where it needs to go within the margin of cost vs. maximum price. At what point will people stop paying 50$ a pound for Wyoming beef or 40$ Mexican canteloupes and eat locally grown, efficiently produced, nutrient-rich soy products instead? The answer is, as long as it's economically feasible, cause beef and winter fruit are tasty.
> 
> All you need to know about humanity's attitudes toward consumerism and the environment can be discovered at a buffet table. Generally, people take more than they need. If they are required to pay a la carte, suddenly their plates aren't quite so heaping.
> 
> ...


Market value replacement works in most cases.  In fact, the system can enhance innovation on small scales.  

Imagine this, though...

90% of what you own will become too expensive to own and operate.  90% of the food you eat will become too expensive to buy.  90% of things you do and of your interactions will be come too expensive to continue.  

Alright, pile this on...

90% of our infrastructure will become obsolete.  90% of our food production systems will be too expensive...it is just too much.

A market didn't create this system and a market cannot solve it.

We have all of our eggs in one basket because of the political hubris of the early 20th century.  Our country invested all of our postwar wealth in a living arrangement that has no future.  

When oil becomes too expensive, its too late.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

Where does the 90% number come from?  Is it a pretty agreed upon number, or is it a number that comes from one study done by the people on a particular side of the issue?  What kind of research was acctually done to come up with the 90%?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Where does the 90% number come from? Is it a pretty agreed upon number, or is it a number that comes from one study done by the people on a particular side of the issue? What kind of research was acctually done to come up with the 90%?


Their has been a lot of diverse research done on this subject.  Check the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas.  They have been collecting it.


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Market value replacement works in most cases.  In fact, the system can enhance innovation on small scales.
> 
> Imagine this, though...
> 
> ...



This is all believable within the "Wolf at the Door" pessimistic scenario. However, if you look at the availability of oil as a bell curve rather than a cliff, as we hit Peak Oil availability will slowly decline, increasing prices gradually over the course of years. The nature of capitalism dictates we will pursue alternative solutions as the old ones become too expensive. If we have time, I have faith in mankind's ingenuity that we will prevail in this particular crisis. Our lifestyles will not likely be the same, but we will adapt.

Two points that have been briefly addressed here that bear greatly on this issue and others like it. Earth, as a finite resource, cannot sustain:

--An infinitely growing human population

--Consumerism as a prevailing economic philosophy for an infinitely growing human population

I don't have ready solutions for these, but I thought they're worth discussing in this context.


----------



## ginshun (May 19, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> This is all believable within the "Wolf at the Door" pessimistic scenario. However, if you look at the availability of oil as a bell curve rather than a cliff, as we hit Peak Oil availability will slowly decline, increasing prices gradually over the course of years. The nature of capitalism dictates we will pursue alternative solutions as the old ones become too expensive. If we have time, I have faith in mankind's ingenuity that we will prevail in this particular crisis. Our lifestyles will not likely be the same, but we will adapt.


 This is pretty much what I have been getting at, you just said it better.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> This is pretty much what I have been getting at, you just said it better.


The interesting thing about oil and gas fields is that the faster you pump the stuff out and the more efficient it is done, only accellerates the depletion.  It makes the curve steeper.  Thus, the drop in production becomes precipitous.  

We could slow down the drop in production if we started conserving now, but that ain't happening.  In fact, our countries policy is to pump the oil out even faster.

Lastly, about capitalism, no free market created the system we have now.  There has been collusion of business and government from the beginning of the 20th century until now.  Our suburban way of life has been shaped by government forces in the form of subsidies so that almost everything that we do is totally dependent on oil.  

We have 200,000,000 cars in this country.  Millions of miles of roads.  Millions of factories.  Millions of farms.  Millions of big box department stores that depend on shipping goods 10,000 miles or more from China.  And millions of cul-de-sac subdivisions named after the things that they destroyed...ie Oak Hill, Quail Hollow, etc.  

When all of this becomes uneconomical, it's too late.

The big secret in this country is that war is the only option if we choose not to change our lives.  We MUST steal oil in order to meet our current needs.  Our President and Vice President and Administration know this, they are in the business, they've known for years.  "Our military action will be paid for with Iraqi Oil," says Paul Wolfowitz.  Nobody asked the Iraqis if this was okay.  My question is who buys the oil after the government procures it?

Therefore, I prefer conservation...it is the only real long term solution and it is the only thing that will deflect some of the worst predictions above.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> This is pretty much what I have been getting at, you just said it better.


Ditto..some people are a little too defeatist/pessimistic and paranoid IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ditto..some people are a little too defeatist/pessimistic and paranoid IMO.


Then you haven't looked at the literature...like the rest of suburbia...beep beep.

And its not pessimistic in any way to say that we need to conserve more and change our lives.


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Then you haven't looked at the literature...like the rest of suburbia...beep beep.
> 
> And its not pessimistic in any way to say that we need to conserve more and change our lives.



Since Tgace was ultimately commenting on what I said, you're stating I haven't done the research, and I have. Even the guy who wrote "The Wolf at the Door" said there were two ultimate visions of the future regarding peak oil. One was basically the opinion I expressed, the other one sounds more like yours, which to me resembles "Road Warrior," "Riddley Walker," or various other post-apocalyptic visions.

We do need to start thinking about it, and changing our habits. Some of us will do it voluntarily, others will wait until economics forces our hand. Awareness will build as the little things get more expensive. Conservation will slow the rate of consumption, or keep it level. There are ultimate solutions out there--nuclear, wind, water (current turbines), solar-- for us to exploit when they become economically feasible.

The human race is ingenious and flexible. A new economy will replace the oil based one. New products and modes of living will emerge. There may be some hard transitions in some places, but overall we'll be ok. If you don't believe me, stock up on twinkies and peeps. They've got what, a 50-year shelf life. Other than that, what can you do other than change your own habits and support change in your community? By the way, what did you think of my telecommute/hub idea?

Look on the bright side--we really don't need to worry about global warming if we're running out of hydrocarbons to burn.


----------



## Tgace (May 19, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Look on the bright side--we really don't need to worry about global warming if we're running out of hydrocarbons to burn.


Yeah! See. Consumerism is actually good for the planet. Lets all buy Hummers so we run out faster.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 19, 2005)

I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing that conservation is good. 

 But the "End is coming" message is a bit overblown.  It makes it sound like all of a sudden we'll wake up and that will be it, no more gas.  

 Nothing happens over night, and while we may be reaching "peak oil" there is still a lot left, and new technologies and power sources ARE being developed. There is no need for a massive shift, a gruadual one will do just fine.  

 SOmewhere up there running out of wood being the opening for coal to take over.  That didn't happen over night either.  It wasn't just one day *poof* no more wood what now?

 Then coal to oil, again not overnight.

 Innovation follows need, as the need grows so will the replacement technologies.  But as long as the need isn't there, getting alternate power sources isn't neccessary.  It will happen, but over time.  

 We, as a planet, will adapt.  If one energy source gets depleted another will fill in as it is on the way out.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> I gave up using a snowblower.  I use an old-fashioned shovel.  I also use an electric lawn mower, to conserve fuel.




You might save fuel at your house, but the fuel as mentioned by at  least on other could be more. In particular since Coal is a major source for Electricity, it has worse emissions then your Lawn Mower that meets California Air Resouce Board (CARB) requirements.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 19, 2005)

This thread has convinced me that the American Way of Life is unsustainable. I am curious as to what people on Martial Talk would be willing to give up in there lives in order to better live in a future of constrained resource and energy supply.

For example, would you...


1. Buy a smaller house?

I did, but coudl I go smaller? Yes, but at what cost to safety and my other items?

2. Share a home with another family?

No.

3. Plant a garden to supplement your diet?

Yes

4. Drive one small car?

As mentioned before, size does matter in this case. Yet, my sports car that I drive as my primary now, gets 26 MPG while racing around the courty side. 30 MPG if I drive more reasonable.

5. Move out of the suburbs and back into the city?

No, See 16.

6. Live less then a mile from work?

No, See 16.

7. Walk, ride, or ski to do errands?

By Ride you mean horse, or bicycle? Yes. I use my Motorcycle when I can, but prefer a vehicle for the possible shower or snow or hail.

8. Would you change careers?

I have thought about this, and the answer is Not right now.

9. Would you use more public transit?

Yes, if it was reliable and safe, and clean.

10. Would you reuse anything that could be reused?

I re-use a lot. Not sure about re-using human waste though.

11. Join an organic commune?

No, See 16

12. Start a farmer's coop?

No, See 16

13. Vacation closer to home?

I do already, and like to do it on my Motorcycle.

14. Communally share tools...like a snowblower for multiple families?

Not sure it would work.

15. Communally share vehicles...like a truck for multiple families?

Did this with my Dad and all the kids in the extended and friends. Now I do it with my truck and friends.

16. Long winded reply:

If everyone moved back into the cities, and closer to work would cause some major issues with today's economy and culture. The cost of land would go up and then the large corporations would be able to step in and make a small city state, by creating a single place for people to work and live and buy all they need. These archologies would be closed economies, and people might not have to live. One might say, why would they move in? It is cheaper, to live in the corporate housing then elsewhere. So, now you are more dependant upon the company to provide your safety and your food supply and your energy, as well as your job for income. 

Now, I agree that people should look into saving energy and the ecology and in the long run themselves.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

There is always a way out, timing is the key...

The nature of Hubbert's curve is that there is a precipitous plateau and then a rather precipitous decline. If you look at the ASPO graphs, conservation technology has been taken into account, that is why they don't look like a true bell curve 20-50 years out. 

It's not like we are going to run out of gas. In 50 or 200 years, there will still be people pumping oil. The oil will just get more expensive. The problem, as I've stated before, is that the economy is overly dependent...nearly completely dependent on oil. Any rise in the price of oil affects...everything.

The "doomsday" scenario follows a sharp increase in the price of oil. The "market driven change" scenario follows a gradual increase. A sharp increase in the price of oil is caused by a sharp decline in production. This follows after the narrowing of Hubbert's curve from overproduction. Conversely, a gradual decline follows from a carefully planned conservation effort.

If we are "Peaked" now, then the time to start conserving is now, while we still have access to the oil wealth of the late 20th century. Instead, we are overproducing the world's stocks and burning as fast as we possibly can...the exact thing we do not want to be doing. 

A "doomsday" scenario is just that. A scenario. An option. It is NOT the future. Yet, we can make it the future with bad decisions. Thus we find the scenarios ultimate usefullness. They are nothing but red flags.

No amount of innovation can change an economy as large as ours and as addicted to oil as ours in over to anything in less then 15-20 years (the Bush Administration says 50, but they have a vested interest in the matter). Pumping and using oil at the rates that we are using it could result in very steep production in less then ten. 

Then what? How do you fix a broken economy with nothing to invest?


----------



## psi_radar (May 19, 2005)

The post-oil economy will likely be driven by new technologies that replace the old infrastructure. America has great engineers. It's quite possible conservation and alternative energy technologies will present the next economic boon. 

I know I sound like all unicorns and rainbows, but honestly I do see a lot of opportunity for progress here.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 19, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> The post-oil economy will likely be driven by new technologies that replace the old infrastructure. America has great engineers. It's quite possible conservation and alternative energy technologies will present the next economic boon.
> 
> I know I sound like all unicorns and rainbows, but honestly I do see a lot of opportunity for progress here.


So do I and I think the future could be really great.

I imagine that we will all live more locally.  I imagine that we will be forced to buy things made closer to home by American hands.  I imagine that we will have to worry alot less about pollution because conservation and alternatives are much cleaner.  I also think that we will be healthier because we'll have to do more things by hand and we will have to eat more organically grown produce.  I also imagine a slower society, that is less on the move and more in tune with its surroundings.

What is there to dislike about the above?

My fear is that "oil myopia" will set in and the "entitlements" of the suburbs will drive our policy rather then common sense.  I can see some people resisting change to the point where they will elect any maniac that promises more oil.  The possibility for darkness, unfortunately, exists.

One cannot forget the amount of cultural inertia that has been constructed over the last fifty years.  In essense, we are talking about changing _The American Dream_.  No matter how nicely put, people are being told that the current _American Dream_ has no future.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So do I and I think the future could be really great.
> 
> I imagine that we will all live more locally. I imagine that we will be forced to buy things made closer to home by American hands. I imagine that we will have to worry alot less about pollution because conservation and alternatives are much cleaner. I also think that we will be healthier because we'll have to do more things by hand and we will have to eat more organically grown produce. I also imagine a slower society, that is less on the move and more in tune with its surroundings.
> 
> ...


We as Americans are the great procrastinators.  We will do something as SOON as we realize oil is just about gone.  Then we'll play catch up.  

Lets not forget, however, that new advancements are driven by demand.  We as Americans have demand a better mouse trap, and pay for it, before we'll get one.  I don't think the sacrifice will be that huge if we invest in it.  Alternative energy technology exists, and it's more than capable of dealing with our energy demands, if we sacrifice in the short term.


----------

