Global Collapse

Quote from: Phil Potts on March 30, 2023, 01:16:12 am

Quote from: FarmGirl on March 27, 2023, 07:21:34 am

Now go do a survey and see if you can figure out how many folks will willingly run to that lifestyle and call it "liberation".

If you and the other conformist herd animals I expressly excluded from also not putting ultimate value on running water are as happy as pigs in ****, why object to the word "wonderful" for your Brave New World?

Conformist herd animals? Not sure I acquired that characteristic considering my history is anything but....


I thought being a Wildcatter just meant you like fracking in previously protected wildlife parks.


you get this because I defined collapse in a way you don't like?

I'm not the one admonishing any discussion of antecedents to the obvious until the afterlife. Nobody disputes the obvious completed process, as I already said.

that's getting repetitive, so let's try applying your own reasoning, which apparently are
not rhetorical tricks:  We use only the dictionary definition as you insisted on for other words. Thereby an earthquake causes collapse only because buildings lose structural strength and topple, not because anyone inside them died. Deathtoll then, does not equate to collapse. Furthermore, this costs nothing, being provided courtesy of tectonic shifting and can not then be made more expensive or cheaper. The definition can not be cheapened and you have no reason to say that is your objection to discussion of decline and collapse of western civilization or all industrial civilization. 

How did you make that leap?

You said you do this primarily for the fun of it

Running water is a great thing, having lived without it for 4 winters in high school when the pipes froze, I can personally attest to its greatness. Each spring!


The question then is what you would be willing to trade for it.

Quote from: Phil Potts

Quote from: FarmGirl

Those raised on a farm know exactly how liberating it is. Or not.

The govt goon you threatened to shoot got their way right? So it's exactly as liberating as living in luxury in Trump Tower or Mar a Lago when the feds come with a warrant.

You'll have to fill me in on this government goon, I can't say I remember any such event myself?

Quote from: FarmGirl on March 30, 2023, 02:04:47 pm

You'll have to fill me in on this government goon, I can't say I remember any such event myself?

While I'm the first to suspect a lot of stories that don't add up being made up, I'll bet the farm that one was real.

You don't seem to recall saying above in the past few days that Earth Day 1970 brought the inevitability of collapse via pollution and resource depletion into focus.

So you can be forgiven forgetting further back than the past few years, the anecdote:

How in your impulsive and testosterone fuelled youth, way out where they play the 5 string with 6 fingers, probably a county official wanted to go onto your property and.. I suppose check your bag limit for varmints? That then resulting in a lengthy court case that almost made you as Americans say, a 'felon' forevermore, just for firing at his feet or in the air? [/b]

You don't seem to recall saying above in the past few days that Earth Day 1970 brought the inevitability of collapse via pollution and resource depletion into focus.

Quote from: Phil Potts on April 01, 2023, 02:05:22 pm

Can we have it forthwith that any accusations of someone saying for example Tonga would disappear or a peak equalling an instant apocalypse, be backed by a direct quote. Call it the April fools Day nobody's fool rule

What say you RE?[/b]

Seems like a good rule to me.

RE

The point is you appeared to forget saying this:

 "And the coming collapse is a given, and has been since folks began realizing what growth and consumption and capitalism and pollution will do, call it Earth Day 1970 if you want me to pick a date when the basics of collapse were coming into view reasonably widely."

when saying this about three days later:

That is a claim that has been around 1970 Earth Day when the collapse was supposed to arrive via overpopulation and pollution.

Backpedaling on that could be believable, but not when you have more claims of a rough peak date being complete collapse, than remaining barrels of oil on earth.  [/b]

Do you recall regularly going back and deleting your posts at DD, so that would not be possible, even if we had access to the archives?

Quote from: Phil Potts on April 01, 2023, 02:05:22 pm

The point is you appeared to forget saying this:

 "And the coming collapse is a given, and has been since folks began realizing what growth and consumption and capitalism and pollution will do, call it Earth Day 1970 if you want me to pick a date when the basics of collapse were coming into view reasonably widely."

when saying this about three days later:

That is a claim that has been around 1970 Earth Day when the collapse was supposed to arrive via overpopulation and pollution.

Oh, I don't forget this at all, I forget the government goon part.

if he wasn't from county, state or fed govt,  was it just a metre reader from the electric company?


I picked a date when the basics of collapse were coming into view, Earth Day 1970. Pollution, climate, lack of oil, I completely agree with both statemenets. The second statement is nothing but mentioning that pollution and overpopulation were part of what was claimed during Earth Day 1970. I like that as a marker for when scientists and credible people claimed a doom that then didn't arrive.

It literally states 1970 as when the collapse arrives ('That is a claim that has been around 1970 Earth Day when the collapse was supposed to arrive..').  If you meant a prediction was made in 1970 for a future date, you needed to give the date of the predicted collapse, with who said what would happen.

Quote from: Phil Potts

Backpedaling on that could be believable, but not when you have more claims of a rough peak date being complete collapse, than remaining barrels of oil on earth.  [/b]

I didn't back pedal on anything. Coming collapse was noticed and the particulars laid down, if I had to pick a date, on Earth Day 1970. Turns out, the timing sure was nonsense though.

I did not say you HAD (past tense) backpeddled on that. Clearly at that point you HAD said nothing further in explanation of it. I said that going forward, backpeddling on it would not be credible. Not credible when you have made innumerable accusations on claims of "collapsing yesterday, collapsing today, collapsing tomorrow" re only claiming a lower energy future, and
"Sure...but how many years do you need to see it and claim it before everyone else figures out you pulled the trigger on claiming it WAY early?" re being in "pre collapse".

Whatever the scope of the movement protesting the problem was in 1970 is probably more than matched today by people against the solution; managed depopulation. The pollution and population problems could only be postponed under the growth based paradigm.

Quote from: K-Dog on April 02, 2023, 12:55:26 pm

'Members shall not accuse each other of backpedaling on previous statements without showing a quote documenting the previous statement.   ?

I don't feel it is necessary to punish Phil for just misinterpreting something I said related to when the basics of collapse came into view, if I were going to offer up a date when you could begin to see the basics arriving in public. I stand by the quotes he came up with, his interpretation was just off.