It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can't we go back to horses and sailing ships?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Recently I read how uncontacted Peruvian forest tribes were threatened by oil exploration.
The comments agreed that this was quite terrible, but some pointed out that everyone who uses oil-based products is really to blame.
Nobody has a right to point fingers, when they indulge in economies that run on oil.

The same is true concerning the Middle Eastern troubles.
Now it's a big mess of who is funding extremists and terrorists via circulatory routes.
This could all stop if we phased out economies dependent on petrol.
We should go back to using horses and sailing ships, and other cultures can do the same, or go back to herding camels and goats in the desert.
Wouldn't that be wonderful?

I think the 18-19th century proved that horse and wind-powered economies can also be globalized.
It can still bring certain benefits without over-stating the benefits on a false premise.
It could also slow down countries intervening in parts of the world where they have no business, the movement of weapons, and the rate of human trafficking and refugees.
The food industries would be encouraged to grow and consume more local fresh products.

OK, we'd need more trees to build ships, but I'm sure sustainable local forests could supply that.

Let's slow things down a little and get more quality of life.
We've got the Internet now and don't need to jet around the globe for conferences, and a holiday in the next village is just as a good as holiday abroad.
I mean sure, holiday abroad, but make it a seafaring occasion while seeing many harbors, and not just getting on a jet.




edit on 22-6-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
No thanks. I like my Subaru and dislike mucking stalls.

edit on 2014/6/22 by Metallicus because: No mucking!



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
it would take a lot longer, and probably be more expensive now days. Whats wrong with the future?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Right? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Why on Earth would anyone want to undo progress and go back to horses and sailing ships? Yet you made a thread earlier supporting the notion that progressing beyond fossil fuels is as a scam. So what's the take away? We can't go back but we can't move forward either?




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

Hmmm you might wanna check out the Emberverse series. It explores what your thinking, only it took an apocalyptic event of epic proportions for it to happen.
edit on 22-6-2014 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

Taking a step back in only one department brings all sorts of logistical challenges. Can you imagine justifying somebody dying because the horse-drawn ambulance or air-ship couldn't get the patient to the hospital on time. Just having to reign back urban (and rural and suburban) sprawl would be difficult.

Not to mention the damage this would have to street cred on various gangs. I can already see the ridiculous "ride"-by shootings from a wagon.

Honestly, if everything but science and technology were scaled back by 100 years, I'd be cool with it. When I see these uncontacted tribes, I don't think they are really at a disadvantage aside from some basic advances.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Thisbseth
Well it could be part of a future.

I'm not saying stop all cars, trains, planes or buses (when sustainable on local reserves, especially for emergencies), but just bring back horses or sailing ships to a much greater degree, particularly for general transport and commerce.


edit on 22-6-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

my allergy to horses is life threatening.
Ill be happy to keep my f-150



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman


Yes because the billions that would starve and die in less than a month are way less important than the couple of hundreds of natives.

I agree we need to get off of fossil fuels.

I agree that we should leave these folks in peace to live their natural life.

We cant go back though, the Amish already fill this nitch, and I dont like to copy others.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: oblvion
Well yes, the natives are some victims of big oil.
earthfirstjournal.org...
The world teetering on World War III because of oil money would also be relevant.

It's all unsustainable anyway.
But how many cultures and unique places is the Titanic going to take down with it?
The more cultures and environments we keep the more resources we have for future crops and medicines.

Who says millions are going to starve in my scenario?
I would still allow emergency uses of modern transport sustained by local resources, but I'd restrict commerce and general matters to horses and sailing ships.

Actually far less people would starve if local sustenance was again encouraged instead of villagers just growing price-controlled and fluctuating crops like coffee or chocolate beans, or the mass meat industries.
Less people would also starve if local expertise remained in their areas, and mechanized weapons were not delivered on order, thus displacing entire populations in terror.

Of course I'm presenting a hypothesis, and I can't say either way for sure.
Perhaps there might be less variety in some sectors, but perhaps even more in others.
However to say it will immediately lead to mass starvation?
I'm not so sure.
All those peoples lived perfectly well on local foods before metal ships and everyone having a car (and most famines were man-made).

I'd be more concerned about distributing medicines, but on the other hand, viruses would also spread much slower across the globe, with more time to stop them.
With good planning it should still be possible to supply essentials.


edit on 22-6-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Quality out of regression?

I couldn't believe the bully brute criminal bloodlines started resetting the planet for the 21st century. When we should be beyond jetson by now.

I want land and homes for everyone, gardens, food, no patents, no slaves, all in abundance, with beamships in my back yard, and everywhere, clean abundant space technology and portals to our home planets and friends.

Normal.

We have the technology but as long they're hellzone evil, they're quarantined.

So, nada, big and major pass. I like gardens and beauty too, with clean high level tech and minus the slave labor, but more creative contributions.

Most people here have done the creating the wheel, and the harsh lower chakra survival BS for so long it stinks to high heaven and needs absolutely no repeats whatsoever.

Now to the higher skills and space age, thank you very much.
edit on 22-6-2014 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Metallicus

Right? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Why on Earth would anyone want to undo progress and go back to horses and sailing ships? Yet you made a thread earlier supporting the notion that progressing beyond fossil fuels is as a scam. So what's the take away? We can't go back but we can't move forward either?



That is a mischaracterization of what my thread was about. I don't think we should be changing to fossil fuel alternatives until they are cheaper than what we currently use. I don't support increasing the cost of fossil fuels to artificially make them more expensive and conversely make alternative fuels viable. Making energy more expensive destroys the economy, causes people to lose their jobs and makes life harder for poor and middle class people.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

I managed 43 horses for just over 10 years. Do you know anything about horse? I fed them 600 lbs. of hay everyday. Do you know what happens when you put 600 lbs. in? Yeah... You get almost 600 lbs out! Every major city would have its citizens neck deep in horse manure. You couldn't grow enough hay, clean enough crap, and have enough hospitals for accidents. Holy horse crap batman what a bad idea.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MarlinGrace
Well thanks for the practicalities, but are they really insurmountable?

Imagine how many people could be employed to clean horse manure, and I bet it can be used for fertilizer.
Perhaps a mixture of fertilizer and hay could encourage mom and pop farming plots close to the cities, or even intertwined with them.

As for hospitals, I think automobiles kill and main a lot of people too.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

Unless you plan on using violent coercion to force people to regress technologically it ain't gonna happen.

Horses and sail boats are inefficient. Unless there is a group with a monopoly on violence that forces people to use them, people will instead continue to utilize the free market when available which will further advance tech.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology
It didn't take force to get people to switch from vinyl to CDs, or from horses to automobiles.

We're staring violence in the face (or at least, many people on the planet are) right now.

After a while no more petrol for private use.
Very simple, and nothing violent about it.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: OrphanApology
It didn't take force to get people to switch from vinyl to CDs, or from horses to automobiles.

We're staring violence in the face (or at least, many people on the planet are) right now.

After a while no more petrol for private use.
Very simple, and nothing violent about it.



Time to get an older car, for EMP's and get ready to make alcohol for fuel.
Dont be scared be prepared.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

Vinyl to CD is a technological advancement not regression.

Horses and sailboats are a regression from current technology. While oil will certainly be an obsolete fuel source in the future, it will not be replaced with something less efficient. Human ingenuity will fill in the blanks because the best minds will want to make money in the absence of old technology(oil).

Unless you use violent coercion to force people to use sailboats and horses, they are a technology that exists only in history books and hobbyists calendars.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: halfoldman

We probably could!

The problem is that as soon as TPTB realize it, they would TAX the hell out of anyone and put licenses in place that it would make it impossible to do it!

Slavery is alive and well, when will the masses wake up and realize it?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: OrphanApology
Some people are going back to vinyl again now increasingly, so I'm not sure whether CD technology was an "advance" or just an industry switch that had some advantages, but also drawbacks.

Anyway, I do think that's a fair point, but ultimately, unless you have a private oil-well in your backyard I don't see how violence or outrage would help if the taps are simply turned off.

I suppose one could sail to Saudi Arabia and buy a few buckets, assuming their oil wells will still work.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join