Search results

What I am arguing about was given in my first point: we need oil. You argued that we don't need oil because tribes people don't use oil. The implication is that if they don't need oil, then we don't. Then, someone added that most people won't survive because they can't live like tribes...

You are contradicting your previous messages. In an earlier one at http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=61398&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=100 you argue that we don't need oil or other sources, but now it turns out that we do; otherwise, most will not survive, as you pointed...

Who's "we"? Less than one billion? One to two million? What do you mean by "survive"? Any number of years lived? What are the conditions of survival? Similar to that of hunter-gatherers today? Or even worse, as long as they remain alive? All of these were explained in my previous post...

Sorry, I don't remember this point. No one's saying that you're a bad guy. It's just that you mentioned earlier that I'm wrong because "we" don't need oil. Now, it turns out that "we" is only a few million people. But that doesn't contradict my argument at all, right? Again, this is what...

Duplicate posts?

From what I know, several countries are dependent on JIT systems and strategic stockpiles, which means they might have something like two weeks' worth of food and medicine, with remaining inventories in a few areas.

The reason for that is because of energy employed for farming, harvesting, processing, and distribution. From what I remember, we need something like 8 to 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food: "10 Calories in, 1 Calorie Out – The Energy We Spend on Food"...

The yield is generally smaller: "Study: Most Organic Crops Fall Short on Yields" http://www.voanews.com/content/study-most-organic-crops-fall-short-on-yields-148887835/370365.html If we much to such or other forms of farming, it will be so because of peak oil and similar problems.

Your argument is self-contradictory! "People would not simply disappear" but "many would die". Your final point is also irrelevant because what concerns us isn't the non-existence of human beings but the fact that many would die. You yourself just admitted that! Do you know how much clean...

If "scientific breakthrough" is "not imperative to our survival," then what is? And who does "our" refer to? Most of 7 billion people? A handful?

Actually, your last point--that survival can be relative--makes your whole argument irrelevant, as one can argue that humanity has survived if a handful of human beings do.

Actually, what I'm doing is the opposite.

Unfortunately, our global capitalist economy requires more than survival, and more people want the same.

We do. Much of our mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture is heavily dependent on and geared towards the use of oil, especially petrochemicals. The rest of your post is nonsense.

Try this list: http://wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/film-d30.shtml with lists for previous years.

Not exactly a docu, but a good intro http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNz3qS5WAo for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug "The Denial Machine" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811 Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqWHP7OuAj4 Another...

The problem is we need oil.

The U.S. supported Saddam for years, as seen in its own government documents. Many police and military generals and local politicians who terrorized the populace now work for the U.S. In many cases, Saddam's enemies are now killing Iraqis and Americans. The number of American dead has now...