Companies ‘too big to fail’ rushed out and got bigger. Governments trying to borrow their way out of debt, without spending money on infrastructure, or money making ventures which would pay back the debt.

How long before they ‘allow’ us to “eat cake”?

Here’s another very important article from ECB.

The people out there that believe
that the U.S. economy is experiencing a permanent recovery and that
very bright days are ahead for us should have their heads
examined.  Unfortunately, what we are going through right now is
simply just a period of “hopetimism” between two financial
crashes.  Things may seem relatively stable right now, but it
won’t last long.  The truth is that the financial crisis of 2008
was just a warm up act for the economic horror show that is
coming.  Nothing really got fixed after the crash of 2008.
We are living in the biggest debt bubble in the history of the world,
and it has gotten even bigger since then.  The “too big to fail”
banks are larger now than they have ever been.  Americans continue
to run up credit card balances like there is no tomorrow.  Tens of
thousands of manufacturing facilities and millions of jobs continue to
leave the country.  We continue to consume far more than we
produce and we continue to become poorer as a nation.  None of the
problems that caused the crisis of 2008 have been solved and we are
even weaker financially than we were back then.  So why in the
world are so many people so optimistic about the economy right now?

Just take a look at the chart posted below.  It shows the
growth of total debt in the United States.  During the financial
crisis of 2008 there was a little “hiccup”, but the truth is that not
much deleveraging really took place at all.  And since the
recession “ended”, total credit market debt has gone on to even greater
heights….

So what does this mean for the future?

Well, if a small “hiccup” in the debt bubble caused so much chaos
back in 2008, what is going to happen when this debt bubble finally
bursts?

Read the rest of this article at the Economic Collapse Blog

James Cameron, the Hollywood producer responsible for blockbuster films like Terminator, Titanic and Avatar, is reportedly preparing to exit stage left. While the move for the Canadian born Cameron may initially be perceived as a rejection or denouncement of American policies and ideals, Cameron, who has made campaign donations to the Democrat Party in the past, most notably during the 2004 Presidential election where he supported democrat John Kerry, may have ulterior motivations, as evidenced by where he’s planning on moving and what he’s planning on doing once he gets there.

From time to time we get a glimpse into the goings on of the well connected. This may be one of those moments:

Cameron has successfully applied to buy 1,067 hectares (2,636 acres) of farmland in New Zealand. In an application filed with the New Zealand Overseas Investment Office, Cameron says he and his family “intend to reside indefinitely in New Zealand and are acquiring the property to reside on and operate as a working farm.”

Source: Associated Press, via Matt Drudge

As we’ve outlined before, farmland is one of the only reasonable physical assets to hold in the event of a major crisis, as you’ll be outside of highly populated metropolitan areas, you’ll have the ability to produce your own food, generate your own energy, and, more so than your urbanite and suburbanite counterparts, stay away from the chaos that will ensue during a major upheaval.

Read the rest of Mac Slavo’s article here:

By Mac Slavo, www.SHTFplan.co

Well known economist, trend forecaster and Gloom, Boom
and Doom Report publisher Dr. Marc Faber
joined some of the world’s leading investment minds at the Barron’s
2012 Roundtable to discuss what’s in store for 2012 and beyond with
respect to the economy, inflation, political stability and a host of
other issues.

As is generally the case, Dr. Faber doesn’t mince words and warns
that, despite what happens in the near term, the end game is global
conflict.

Excerpted from Barron’s
2012 Roundtable via SGT Report

Marc Faber: On another optimistic note, World War
III will occur in the next five years. That means the Middle East will
blow up. New regimes there will be less Western-friendly. The West has
also figured out it can’t contain China, which is rising rapidly and
will have more military and naval power in Southeast Asia. The only way
for the West to contain China is to control the oil tap in the Middle
East.

Bill Gross (Founder, Pimco): How does your World
War III hypothesis affect the financial markets? Is it positive for
stocks?

Marc Faber: It is very positive for stocks and
negative for bonds, because debt will grow dramatically. There will be
massive monetization of debt. When the U.S. entered World War II total
credit equaled 140% of GDP, and there were no unfunded liabilities. Now
total credit-market debt is 380% of GDP, and unfunded liabilities make
that 800%.

Brian Rogers (Chairman, T. Rowe Price): How is
World War III good for stocks?

Felix Zulauf (Zulauf Asset Management): Unused
capacity in an economy can be directed to the defense and war industry.
That will be paid for by new government debt, and that keeps the
economy growing.

Scott Black (President, Delphi): Marc, if Israel
strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities, they will use air power. They aren’t
going to commit ground troops. It won’t be the kind of conflagration
you’re thinking.

Bill Gross: War takes place today in cyberspace
and in terrorist space. Whether or not there will be a land war isn’t
the question.

Dr. Faber has also expressed his views on prior occasions,
suggesting that World War III is an inevitable outcome when nations
begin to default on trillions of dollars worth of debt (whether by
refusing to pay or simply easing their monetary supply).

In August
of 2010 Faber urged his subscribers to begin making preparations
for worst case scenarios:

In his latest GBD Report, Faber again advises those with the means
to do it, to leave urban areas and seek safety in rural, country areas,
preferably farms, and to be prepared to defend that land in the event
the worst happens:

Faber has an interesting suggestion for investors if the
plunge comes to pass.

With tongue apparently in cheek, he says buy a farm you can
tend to yourself way out in the boondocks. And protect it with high
voltage fences, barbed wire, booby traps, military weapons and
Dobermans.

While several members of the Roundtable disagree with the idea that
a conventional global war is out of the question, suggesting instead
that conflicts will be dealt with through air superiority and in
cyberspace (in itself a potentially catastrophic battlefield for modern
civilization), they are ignoring the real possibility that an attack on
Iran, or even a rogue attack against Europe or the United States, could
escalate to such a level that China
or Russia
would have no choice but to get involved.

While hard to believe, we’ve seen it before. Twice just in the last
century.

Not many people would have believed it prior to 1914 either. But
within just a few short months of the assassination of Archduke
Ferdinand in late June of that year, millions were dead and the Western
front had extended hundreds of miles across Europe to the North Sea.

Events played out with similar velocity in World War II when Adolf
Hitler’s aptly named Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) overtook entire nations
in a matter of days.

It only takes one country, one sociopathic leader with his finger on
the button, to get the ball rolling. Then there is no stopping it.

Author: Mac Slavo

Date: January 17th, 2012
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

In recent days, the fact that Mitt Romney has millions of dollars parked down in the Cayman Islands has made headlines all over the world. But when it comes to offshore banking, what Mitt Romney is doing is small potatoes.

The truth is that the global elite are hiding an almost unbelievable amount of money in offshore banks. According to shocking research done by the IMF, the global elite are holding a total of 18 trillion dollars in offshore banks. And that figure does not even count any money being held in Switzerland. That is a staggering amount of money.

Keep in mind that U.S. GDP in 2010 was only 14.58 trillion dollars. So why do the global elite go to such trouble to hide their money in offshore banks? Well, there are two main reasons. One is privacy and the other is low taxation. Privacy is a big issue for those that are involved in illegal enterprises such as drug running, but the biggest reason why people move money into offshore banks is in order to avoid taxes. Some set up bank accounts in foreign nations because they want to legally minimize their taxes and others set up bank accounts in foreign nations because they want to illegally avoid taxes. You would be absolutely amazed at what some large corporations and wealthy individuals do to get out of paying taxes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the rest of us don’t have the resources or the knowledge to play these games, so we get taxed into oblivion.

So why do they call it “offshore banking”?

Continue reading this article at: the Economic Collapse Blog.

Since it is a basic, stripped down system, I’ve called it “Naked” hydroponics.

The reason I believe such a system is important is because current and recent events have convinced me that the world is on the brink of not just another major financial crisis, but also a major social upheaval, which will make household and local community self sufficiency -at least in water and basic food staples- a matter of utmost importance.

In a world where the vast majority live in or are moving to an urban environment, hydroponics is the only possible way these people can achieve any measure of food security.

In short, because I have kids, and I care about them. I want to survive, and I want them to survive. I’d like them to have kids of their own and I’d like those kids to have a life at least as good as mine, if not better.

Can’t see the problem?

Farming has always been a battle. Floods, drought, pests, diseases, the list is almost endless. Even in a year of good average rainfall, farmers can have a really bad time just because the rain fell at the wrong time.

But now, farmers face an even greater, and far more insidious threat.

Credit.

Because farming is so unpredictable, just about every traditional or terrestrial farmer accepts that most years won’t be good ones. Old farmers talked about “1 in 7”; one bumper year to pay for six bad years. For this reason, farmers really need some form of banking system. They need a reliable line of credit to carry them through the bad seasons. After all, isn’t storing food in silos a very basic form of banking? ‘Saving for a rainy day’…

Today, without credit, they stop farming.

And we stop eating.

The world’s debt based monetary system of allowing banks to control the money supply is looking increasingly fragile. Not just the bank bailouts and shonky deals on the stock market -although how anyone could believe that it’s possible to borrow one’s way out of a massive debt crisis is mystifying- but also physically fragile; as the internet becomes more pervasive and the world’s finance is nothing more than numbers in a computer, we’re faced with threats from hackers, computer viruses, solar flares, an electromagnetic pulse with or without a nuclear detonation, and probably threats we haven’t even dreamed of; any of which could stop people from just eating.

Currently in ‘advanced’ countries, the all important task of supplying food for the whole population is left in the hands of less than 5% of the total population, and the percentage is still falling. On top of that -or maybe in part because of it- the food we eat has to travel enormous distances, incurring further costs and requiring ever more expensive -and vulnerable- infrastructure.

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than a farmer with good land, reliable rainfall, all the stock and equipment he needs, not being able to farm because he can’t pay his fuel bill? Or his fuel supplier can’t pay his bill?

Or because some banker half a world away went nuts and jumped out of a window, after deleting every file on the banks’ computers?

It could happen.

Such a crash would not only affect farmers of course. A financial collapse would affect water and electricity utilities, transport networks, Police, firemen, doctors, nurses, teachers… In the push to create a Global Economy, we have ignored one of the fundamental rules any study of nature should have taught us: “Never put all your eggs in one basket”. Most sensible, educated people have come to accept the need for biological diversity. Is it really such a jump to accept that the need for economic diversity is just as vital to the human condition?

Not to me.

And we haven’t even touched on the other looming crises, like Peak Oil, Peak Phosphorus, Global Warming, Rising Sea Levels, rapid depletion of ancient artesian water basins…

Of course, there’s much more to it than just nutty survivalism, or caring about the environment, or cutting down on the enormous amounts of packaging that just ends up in landfill, or saving fuel and transport costs, or having chemical and pesticide free food to eat, or saving money…

Growing our own food is also interesting and fun.

And growing food hydroponically will always be the only viable option for urban or suburban dwellers.

Learn how to create your own food security, using “the simplest, easiest, most convenient and cheapest hydroponic system”, by clicking here

Remember the GST? It was first suggested by Paul Keating, who was far too wily (and at that time, too vulnerable) a politician to try and implement it himself. He was content just to put the concept out there. John Hewson very obligingly picked up the ball and tripped over both feet trying to run with it; successfully managing to lose what many pundits considered an unloseable election.

The fact that Howard was able to make the GST a part of his platform during his second term a few years later simply demonstrates: a) It was no longer ‘an entirely new concept’; b) just how on the nose the memory of the Keating Government by that stage was; c) the fractured nature of the then Labor Party.

Hewson’s campaign was an act which I suggest is worthy of a new word in his honour.

Hewsonasia, nn: The politically suicidal act of attempting to introduce a new tax that no one (outside government) understands and no one (outside government) wants.

It appears Julia Gillard has just hewsonised herself.

Before it became a hip pocket thing, the majority of Aussies were prepared to follow the lead of the majority of climate scientists, and believe in Human Affected Climate Change (HACC). Many (like myself, and I would hope most scientists) might be a little sceptical of -with our current level of knowledge and understanding- anyone’s ability to make accurate predictions, but let’s face facts here.

World wide, we are currently using around 17 million tonnes of coal every single day.

About 84 million barrels of oil every single day

About 3,000 billion cubic metres of natural gas every single day.

Despite the fact that arguably the most ubiquitous material in our society today is plastic made from hydrocarbons, by far the greatest portion of these valuable, non renewable hydrocarbons is simply burnt, to produce heat and atmospheric pollution.

In the light of current knowledge that volcanoes, major fires and even the absence of contrails in the upper atmosphere can produce measurable changes in local weather and temperature, how can burning all those fossil fuels possibly not have an affect on our planet’s biosphere?

One of the cutest arguments to bob up recently from so called ‘climate sceptics’ (denialists) is that CO2 is not a pollutant. I strongly suggest the advocates of this argument spend 3 minutes trying to breath the stuff. “But it helps plants grow!” They exclaim. In a world where we cut down one and a half acres of rainforest every second, this argument makes exactly as much sense as telling a farmer all he has to do to get a good crop is fertilise, even while he applies Roundup.

Bottom line: not only is pollution not a good thing, but burning valuable hydrocarbons is really stupid. Not only are these materials necessary to produce plastics and a host of other products, but the much vaunted ‘Green Revolution’, which has done so much to feed so many, is entirely reliant on hydrocarbon inputs.

To put it bluntly, we eat fossil fuels.

Surely anyone who spares a thought for their children and grandchildren should be concerned about these matters, even if they don’t buy into the ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ argument.

Perhaps of even more concern should be the statistics on just how much of these valuable non renewable resources are left. According to good old Wikipedia,

Years of production left in the ground with the current proved reserves and flows above (daily production through 2006)

Coal: 148 years

Oil: 43 years

Natural gas: 61 years

Equally stupid is the suggestion that the laissez faire marketplace, which is almost entirely reactive rather than proactive, could possibly counter this impending disaster.

The marketplace will simply react by increasing the prices of these products, until the food riots we are seeing now in just a few places around the planet, will be almost universal.

Between 2006 and 2008 average world prices for rice rose by 217%, wheat by 136%, corn by 125% and soybeans by 107%.

How will you fair when your grocery bill more than doubles in the space of just 2 years? (And again, every 2 years after that.)

How much will your children be paying for food?

A tax on burning non renewable resources is as inevitable as death and, well, taxes. The only real question is how to best use that tax. Please note, I would like something a little more imaginative than taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other.

There are already viable alternatives to using non renewables. As I have suggested elsewhere, my favourite is wavepower, but for those terrestrially committed there are also thorium reactors, solar, wind, geothermal and maybe in the not too distant future, hydrogen fuel cells.

Domestically, some of these alternatives offer possibilities to individuals and families now. Unfortunately, only those with significant levels of disposable income can take advantage of these alternatives -and save money long term by doing so; eg. the cheapest hot water systems cost the most to run.

Installing solar panels will cut down on burning coal, and save you money, -if you have a spare $10k or so.

Converting your car to LPG will reduce pollution and save you money, -if you have a spare $3-$5k.

And so on.

Perhaps instead of hewsonising herself, Ms Gillard would have been better served offering Australians carrots instead of sticks, in the form of making all those desirable changes more affordable to the forgotten 50% of Australians who make less than $40k a year, so they can start saving money too.

You remember them, Ms Gillard?

They used to be called ‘Traditional Labor Voters.’

Here’s a simple one. Instead of ‘Cash for Clunkers’, how about ‘Cash for Conversions’? Currently LPG retails for roughly half the price of unleaded. Offer gas conversions for $0.00 up front and offer the opportunity to pay off the conversion cost by paying a 25 cent per litre levy on every purchase of LPG.

It would still be cheaper than using petrol; people could save money and reduce pollution.

And what about air ships? Lighter than air craft would be almost silent, not require long runways and use about a thousand times less fuel (or perhaps, no fuel at all). Yes they are much slower, but the trade off could be in being roomier and more luxurious; even including train style sleeping berths.

I would imagine starting up an airship manufacturing industry would not only offer large employment opportunities, but would possibly cost considerably less to start up than the NBN, and quite conceivably lead to export profits.

All it takes is imagination.

Of course, there are always two sides to every coin.

There is no denying the simple common sense of Darwin’s proposition, yet when we talk of ‘evolution’ we invariably think of change; of a species changing or evolving into something slightly different. And there’s the rub.

Survivors don’t need to change.

Sharks and stingrays could be used as an excellent example of of this hypothesis. While evolution within the order has undeniably occurred over the last hundred or so million years, the essential morphology of many species has changed very little, very possibly because their oceanic environment has also changed very little, and the ocean through sheer volume changes very slowly, which in the classical argument, allows time for the stronger (or less specialised) species to adapt.

This may be true for the species, but what about on an individual basis? Within the species, the very strongest will continue to do as they have always done, and fight off any peers who try to stop them.

Their offspring will be raised to follow their parents eating and social habits closely. No change.

It will be the weaker members of the species that will be forced to change and adapt.

It seems when we look at history, when placed under stress members of a species or community will often find it easier to compete with even a hostile environment, than with members of their own race or species.

Does anyone really believe the Inuit moved into the icy wastes because they favoured a more invigorating climate? Or that the desert tribes of Australia thought the dry heat would be good for their sinuses? The history of pioneers throughout the world has been of the (economically or numerically) weaker members being pushed out by the strong: convicts to Australia, religious refugees to America… Even today, the process can still be witnessed. Even as the young and fit move to the cities, the older ones are moving to a ‘sea’ or ‘tree’ change; selling their properties within highly developed infrastructure areas, to move to lower infrastructure areas for cash discounts.

So my contention is, it isn’t the strong who evolve, but the weak; in fact, evolution is a weakness.

Far from being a “progress, from the most base to the most Noble”, evolutionary change is more often from general to specific; and in becoming more specialised the new specie becomes more vulnerable to extinction.

Anyone who has ever sat in a park and fed scraps to the birds would be familiar with the eating habits of sparrows. In the course of a week or more, I could eat anything from fish ‘n chips, hamburgers, chinese, thai, mexican, french, italian; I don’t believe I have ever seen a sparrow reject anything (although I have seen seagulls turn up their bills at the fish, which I found a little disturbing). Compare this to a more ‘highly evolved’ humming bird, for instance. Which do you believe is in more danger of extinction?

I mentioned Herbert Spencer in the opening paragraph very deliberately. Spencer could be described as a very early member of a rapidly evolving species which would come to be called ‘economists’. His greatest contribution to history appears to be the immortal phrase “Survival of the Fittest”. He was of course noting the similarity between Darwin’s theory of natural selection to the laissez faire marketplace. He appeared to feel that because this system was ‘natural’ it had to be ‘right’. Of course, some would argue that at least some Humans aspire to a slightly higher ethical code than that of a flock of chooks, squabbling over scraps.

Nevertheless, the comparison is apt.

The undeniable fact is, Humans have never lived in a more specialised society. Less than 3% of our population is tasked with the duty of feeding the rest of us. Even these humble few can’t do their very necessary jobs without a host of very specialised supporters, from diesel mechanics to industrial and bio-chemists, and now genetic engineers. Most frightening is our total reliance on electronic infrastructure, most particularly in the area of finance.

We have actually become so specialised, so reliant on this infrastructure, that if a financial commodity -which only really exists in cyberspace as a convention based largely on faith- were to suffer a malfunction, people would (are and continue to) literally starve to death.

History tends to indicate that evolution (specialisation) almost inevitably leads to extinction. Our society has reached a pinnacle of evolution never before seen or dreamt of.

The only question remaining is, will the extinction of our society result in the extinction of Humanity?

The truth is, the vast majority of Humans live ‘off’ the land now anyway. Today, most humans are either already living in cities or moving to live in cities, where weather and the environment are generally considered to be inconveniences.

In fact, just about everybody considers weather to be an inconvenience; particularly those who have to work in it, or profit from it. Farmers are increasingly finding nature to be most uncooperative in the production of vital grains and vegetables. Rain either doesn’t fall, or falls at the wrong times. Unseasonable heat waves, harsh winds, cold snaps, insect and mouse plagues; what has always been a risky business has grown distinctly riskier in recent years.

It seems quite bizarre that the creation of so essential and indispensable a commodity as food, required by so very many, should be left to such a small handful of individuals and the vagaries of nature.

Far from being supported and nurtured by the natural environment, farmers have been at odds with nature for centuries. From using simple irrigation systems thousands of years ago to overcome the unreliability of rains, to artificial fertilisers and pesticides and air conditioned tractors, and crops and even livestock raised completely indoors, the march away from the natural environment has been ongoing and relentless.

So why not take the ultimate step?

Since most of us already live ‘off’ the land, moving our cities onto the seas would not be as big a step as you might think.

Firstly, consider cost. How much would a quarter acre block be worth, on the water front at Bondi? With concrete currently retailing at about $200. a cubic metre, a quarter acre (1000 sq. metre) of concrete would cost about $20,000 in materials alone. A pontoon 3 metres deep (more than enough to float an average home) would only cost about $50,000 in materials.

For a 1000 sq. metre block with absolute water frontage, on all four sides.

Of course, there’s no reason to build such an ugly edifice. My home will be 3 stories; I above and 2 below sea level. Can you imagine looking out your window at a reef (underwater veranda) full of fish?

In other words, instead of building on a pontoon, the house is the pontoon, thus eliminating the cost of a ‘building block’ entirely.

This is a much more modest proposal than other recent suggestions, such as the ‘Lilypad‘ concept, or the “Seasteading” institute; both of which focus on building cities and/or societies entire, rather than the traditional ‘organic’ approach of building cities, one house at a time, as suggested here.

The costs could conceivably be even lower than you might think. Seacrete or biocrete forms when a small electric current flows through a metal grid submerged in sea water. Calcium and salt deposits form around the grid, creating a material quite similar to concrete.

Although current studies tend to indicate the strength of this material is rather low, perhaps we could start with a traditional concrete frame, and encourage seacrete to grow around it, so buildings would continue to grow stronger year after year, rather than degrade, as our current buildings do.

This would justify the existing trend of buildings continuing to inflate in price, even as they are degrading structurally.

The arguments in favour of a floating arcology are almost beyond counting.

Complete immunity from earthquakes and floods.

Little or no money spent on roads and guttering; certainly no road maintenance.

A totally enclosed, climate controlled environment.

No cockroaches, or mosquitoes, or ants or mice or any uninvited pests; meaning no chemical deterrents required.

Each home could have sections devoted to hydroponic and sterile earth gardens, giving families a measure of independence and offering some defence against catastrophic system failure -such as the world is currently undergoing.

A community of fully enclosed, interlocking homes could be not only be self sufficient and sustainable, but could also have viable exports of surplus or waste products.

Energy would be supplied by wind, waves and solar. Houses and communities would be buoyed up with compressed air, requiring technology not much more advanced than a push bike pump; operated by wave action. Surplus compressed air could drive generators on windless days. Temperature control could be achieved simply by adjusting air flow through various depths of sea water; apple orchards and cool season crops located in the lower levels. These levels would also supply an ideal environment for computers, and any industry benefiting from strict temperature control and a sterile environment.

Fear of pandemics would be a thing of the past. Floating communities could be the most physically and biologically secure environments on the planet.

Protection from severe wave action would be provided by a ring of floating pontoons, in much the same way as reefs shelter coral atolls. These pontoons would supply compressed air power to the communities, as well as roosts for sea birds. Guano could again be a valuable export to drylanders, along with night soil and seaweed compost; to replace some of the soils the drylanders so carelessly lose to the oceans every day.

In the lagoons formed inside the protective ring, fish farms. With intensive breeding programs, we could actually start giving back to nature with restocking programs, instead of continually raping and diminishing her.

All bio waste would be directed to methane digesters; the bio gas used to power boats; if anyone ever wanted to visit the old world.

In a post peak oil world, manufacturing will no longer be dominated by countries with cheap labour (and consequent low living standards). The most practical place for manufacturing will be at sites with reliable cheap renewable energy. As manufacturing becomes more and more automated, energy will replace labour as the major component of price.

I don’t know about you, but when I think of the world’s most beautiful places, my rating is almost invariably in inverse proportion to human impact; apart from a few examples of -generally ancient- architectural grandeur. We now have the capacity to reduce our impact on the landscape to virtually zero, while our impact on the seascape would be minimal.

Even a city the size of Sydney would not be much more than a flyspeck, in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

One could reasonably hope that in such an enclosed, climate controlled community, materialism and consumerism would not be required. Emphasis would be on having zero or beneficial impact on the outside environment; by pumping up cold water and nutrients from the depths, algae would be encouraged, to increase Co2 conversion and possibly even affect the weather.

And who should pioneer this last frontier?

Well, Baby Boomers, of course. For a start, most of us have houses we can sell, to buy into an arcology.

We are beyond breeding age, to stabilise population growth.

And the message is getting increasingly stronger, that we simply are no longer required.

As for the support an aging population needs, there are more than enough impoverished children in the world, who I’m sure would jump at the chance of a good home, in return for a few household chores…

I have often felt in these discussions that mine was a lonely voice, in defending the rights of unborn generations to a share of these non renewable resources.

I don’t understand why the time period matters, or that a longer period to complete exhaustion of a resource is more defensible than a short period.

“Nonrenewable”essentially means, will INEVITABLY run out, while “renewable” essentially means, will NEVER run out, although admittedly a distinction should be made between perpetual power sources: Solar, wind, wave; and renewable resources like bio mass, which obviously needs to be managed.

I have tried to condense this idea into a question I can post at Online Opinion. Here, of course, you can register your vote, as well as comment. I suspect putting my full name in the post will be considered too confrontational for some, or too much of a challenge. I would stress here the suggestion that your family should know your user name, so even distant descendants will theoretically at least be able to look you up, while protecting your current anonymity.

I believe, historically, the 20^th and 21^st centuries are going to be a ‘stand out’ period, like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. Obviously, future historians are going to look back at this period, and make some judgements on the decisions we make.

But will it only be historians?

On another thread, it was suggested that we users make sure our families know our user names and passwords, ‘just in case’.

Out of idle curiosity, I checked the records OLO keeps of everyone’s posts. My first post was in April, 2006 (and I misspelt Muslim). I wonder how long will OLO continue to keep these posts?

Unlike past history, which has been largely interested in Heads of State, and people of
significance, in future it seems likely our descendants will be able to very easily and very quickly look up what we, as their personal ancestors, felt about about the issues of our day.

How are our great great grandchildren going to judge us, on issues like the use of non renewable resources?

More importantly, would awareness of personal accountability change anyone’s mind?

My name is Peter William Grimley, and I would like to state for the record, that I believe the over use of any resource -living or dead- to the point of depletion or extinction, is

STUPID.

How about you?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

recently sent me some links; the first is by Albert A Bartlett.

Bartlett is a mathematician, and has been described as a ‘neo

malthusian’. You may not like his conclusions, but his arithmetic is

undeniable.

For anyone who thinks videos about arithmetic probably won’t be as fascinating as ‘Star Wars’ the important thing to take away from this vid comes very early: Growth and doubling time. In summary, if you see a percentage growth quoted, divide it into 70 to find the doubling time.

IOW, if you see growth (of say population) of 7%, divide that into 70 to arrive at a doubling time of 10 years.

If you want to know the Why and How, watch the vid.