by Dreams End » Fri Sep 09, 2005 3:39 am
manxcat said:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But, you make it sound as if Ruppert himself is condoning population reduction. Again, if you can link me to that, I'd appreciate it because, if so, it will make me think twice.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And then, after being shown that Ruppert did say this, Manxcat said:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Maybe Ruppert is simply stating that an "ethical program of population reduction" is the lesser of the other "choices" which result in massive human suffering: wars, bioweapons, famine, disease, natural disasters resulting from global warming. Obviously, such an agreement by "all of humanity" will never happen. But, in theory, if it could be proven that population reduction was the last resort for saving humanity, then Ruppert's idea would seem like a necessary "painful choice." Of course, there's no possibility of any kind of worldwide rational concensus on this subject, so it's all just academic. What Ruppert said doesn't bother me -- it just shows that he's willing to give his personal views on a subject that most people shy away from.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You know, maybe he simply meant what he said. For some reason, everyone wants to look for interpretations of Ruppert that make him look not as bad. Here's Manxcat, a cool cat if ever there was one, who says that a view supporting population reduction would give him pause. And then, in just a few minutes, backing off that as soon as the evidence he asked for is presented. OF COURSE Ruppert thinks it's the most ethical thing to do...he's not going to say there are more ethical approaches and THEN push pop. reduction. I understand now why the arguments made by those of us who don't like Ruppert don't sink in. I guess that's something, anyway.<br><br>To Ferry Fey, I don't know where you are from, but it's pretty conclusively established, in my view, that the voting is pretty rigged around here. Add to that the influence of money and dirty tricks and traditional politicking backfires, in my opinion. It's how we got Kerry as the "opposition" candidate. "Hey, I'm for the war...I used to shoot Vietnamese my ownself. Sure, I denounced that war once, but that was just a dare my Skull and Bones buddies made me do."<br><br>However, other forms of political action are still possible. I think Cindy Sheehan had an impact (I mean the movement around her). The internet creates opportunities to share information quickly and even to organize events. And there is nonviolent direct action. I think the Zapatistas have a lot to teach us about what it means to do politics and they are worth some study. Plus, you'll never find a more colorful spokesperson than Subcommandante Marcos. There's all kinds of methods, so I don't think critiquing our current electoral system is fatalistic. In fact, I think organizing for electoral reform is a good idea..it educates people about the manipulation in the current approach (no paper trails, recounts declared illegal) and maybe the reforms will be adopted. <br><br>My point is that any programs put forward that suggest events are too advanced or that time is too short to mount unified resistance, is going to serve the status quo who don't want us to engage in such resistance. Not to worry, though. If Ruppert is right, and we only have a year till we're all in one big New Orleans, then I don't think we've harmed ourselves or our spirit by attempting to change (demolish, in my view) the system that allowed these oil companies to amass so much power in the first place. And if he's wrong, we haven't wasted valuable time ignoring possibilities of collective action as we gather our survivalist gear (which does not have to be mutually exclusive with working in our communities for change.)<br><br>In fact, the nice thing is, that by engaging, together with others in our community, in actions to create change, we also create larger networks and communities who can share resources and help each other in times of disaster, including of Peak Oil. But I think it is important to build these communities not simply as a means to survive, but as movements for change. <br><br>I personally think we are headed for a big fall. But I don't think Peak Oil is the cause. I think you can see most of the policies of the US as efforts to control existing areas rich in resources. whether or not they are actually running out, the logic for imperialism is to grab as much as they can. He who controls the energy controls the world. <br><br>But if we simply say, "darn it, ran out of oil", rather than placing the blame where it belongs, with the folks who actively plan to impoverish much of the world in order to enrich themselves, we miss not only the real story but our only chance at meaningful action. We can't protest about oil running low. You can't organize a union to put oil back into the ground. So if Ruppert happens to be wrong, he's putting forward ideas that tell people such actions are pointless. And the powers that be do thank him, whether he understands that or not.<br><br>WE may not know if Peak Oil as it is expressed by many other members of the oil industry financed Association for the Study of Peak Oil, is upon us, because, as many point out, the actual "peak" is simply the beginning of the point at which the cost of getting at the oil is more and more prohibitive as known supplies dwindle and new ones are not discovered (how do they predict future discoveries? be curious to know.) For this discussion, however, this is not the case. Ruppert has clearly said that in a year, we are all New Orleaners. (Oh what he really meant to say was....whatever...) So in a year or so, we'll see if his prediction has come true. However, there are forces at work that WANT his predictions to come true...and they might not be beyond turning off the oil spigots awhile to get what they want.<br><br>Also for the record, let me state that I don't like the use of oil and I'm highly in favor of alternatives. Ruppert and other Peakers have written that no alternatives now available will be sufficient. Well, if the collapse is that close, they are probably right. But if they are wrong, then we should be getting after those alternatives and pressuring our governments to adopt them. And since we can't know for sure if they are right or wrong, I'm in favor of continuing to work for alternate energy sources, despite the mighty battle the oil companies wage to keep such energy sources unavailable (except maybe nuclear...is there much overlap in the oil and nuclear industries? I've always assumed there was, but never researched it. )<br><br>After all, no matter our disagreements here, I doubt we will EVER be debating Peak Wind or Peak Sun.<br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
