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

a reply to: Metallicus

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.

Think of all the horse and buggy related jobs that were lost to automobiles. My God. The food RIPPED from the plates of the teamsters' children. That's just emotionally charged rhetoric. Should we be turning our backs on technological advancement because jobs in outmoded industries will be lost during the transition? Won't the new technology result in new jobs? This is part of what you said:

I know there are many of you that actually believe this climate nonsense and have been fooled into thinking it is more than an Agenda 21 power grab by the powers that be, but at least consider the economic cost of what you doing to hard working, American families.

Wars have been started for less than taking away the livelihood of 200,000 people and taking food from the plates of their family.

You think the fossil fuel industry is really threatened by carbon taxes? They'll just pass the costs along to us. So in that regard, we're in agreement. These companies have a parasitical relationship with society and our government. They're fighting against innovation and progress to keep their industry viable.

At long last, the Koch brothers and their conservative allies in state government have found a new tax they can support. Naturally it’s a tax on something the country needs: solar energy panels.

For the last few months, the Kochs and other big polluters have been spending heavily to fight incentives for renewable energy, which have been adopted by most states. They particularly dislike state laws that allow homeowners with solar panels to sell power they don’t need back to electric utilities. So they’ve been pushing legislatures to impose a surtax on this increasingly popular practice, hoping to make installing solar panels on houses less attractive.

Oklahoma lawmakers recently approved such a surcharge at the behest of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the conservative group that often dictates bills to Republican statehouses and receives financing from the utility industry and fossil-fuel producers, including the Kochs. As The Los Angeles Times reported recently, the Kochs and ALEC have made similar efforts in other states, though they were beaten back by solar advocates in Kansas and the surtax was reduced to $5 a month in Arizona.

But the Big Carbon advocates aren’t giving up. The same group is trying to repeal or freeze Ohio’s requirement that 12.5 percent of the state’s electric power come from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2025. Twenty-nine states have established similar standards that call for 10 percent or more in renewable power. These states can now anticipate well-financed campaigns to eliminate these targets or scale them back.

source

a reply to: halfoldman

People collect vinyls as a hobby.

Those same people also generally have hoards of mp3s and other various current technologies.

Also in the absence of oil there are various technologies that would take route immediately that don't involve animals that # tons and consume more.

Also turning off the taps of oil is just another fancy way of saying you used violent coercion to force people to stop buying a product.

"I turned off the taps to the city well...now everyone is buying gatorade."

Yeah, what you really mean is you pointed a gun at the man who was getting himself a drink of water and told him he could no longer get water from the city well. Now he buys gatorade.

a reply to: seeker1963
Yeah, I can already imagine the horse tax by breed, a manure tax, a hay tax, a wagon tax - I guess death and taxes will always be unavoidable.

The petrol ban will have to be totally fair though, and people would have reason to be upset if they see politicians or Justin Bieber racing cars while everyone else goes on tour by wagon-train.

better have shorter work days with alot more pay cause it takes an hour commute in my truck at 55+mph I couldnt afford to have a horse on the wages i have now besides that who to blame next the employers with machines that require fuel and oil?? The computer you are using is all made from plastics derived from petroleum so are cell phones and lots of medication and the list goes on and on and on. Im saying that we should look for more responsible means but for now this is where we are at.

a reply to: Brotherman
Could computers not be made from recycling the huge glut of plastic we already have?

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: Brotherman
Could computers not be made from recycling the huge glut of plastic we already have?

Do you think computers are made out of plastic? The only plastic on computers is the casings. The important stuff is silicon, gold, platinum, copper, etc etc not to mention recycling plastic is energy intensive (and without oil, where is that energy coming from?

You talk about how the 19th century proves you can have a global economy without oil. Well, you can have a 19th century economy without oil, not a 2014 one. Other than the millions dying trade dries up like crazy as the prices for everything skyrockets and nobody can afford anything. Not to mention, from an environmental standpoint, you do know that they burned TONS and TONS of coal? Which is about the most dirty way to make energy? But I'm sure you'd stop coal burning too, so millions more can freeze in their homes.

No offense but it sounds like you put zero thought into this idea at all.

The only possible way to get people to stop using fossil fuels is with violent coercion. If you have another way please explain.

Every single thing you own, or anybody else owns in this country that was purchased has been shipped via burning oil at some point, or has parts shipped, etc. Food is shipped via oil burning vehicles. All large supermarkets have lean inventory which means they have ONLY a days worth of stuff and re-stock every night with large trucks (burning oil) This only works because trucks are fast.

What you propose would literally collapse every single modern large economy on the face of the earth. Millions upon millions would die. The only reason the population of the Earth is at 6+ billion people is because of modern economic means of food production. All that is based on cheap energy (fossil fuels) You take that away, everyone starts dying. All those starving people in Africa? Where do you think they get their aid from? Other countries shipping it to them on oil burning planes, boats, and trucks.

What you propose is definitely possible, if you hold the world hostage and force them to stop using fossil fuels. But it's just a simple fact millions, likely billions would die.

I suggest waiting until you are a bit more wise before you start plotting to save the word by controlling what everyone does.

I'm just curious, how old are you? No offense meant at all, seriously, I'm just curious.

a reply to: James1982
A lot of great counter-points, although I'd still say it is conjecture that millions of people are going to die if one phased out personal and non-essential use of petrol.

What about the millions of people being displaced and staring death in the face right now because of oil money?
How is this going to end?
I'd rather have a horse and peace than live in a war-zone.

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: James1982
A lot of great counter-points, although I'd still say it is conjecture that millions of people are going to die if one phased out personal and non-essential use of petrol.

No, it's fact. Where is their food going to come from? It's simple logistics. Without oil we cannot produce nearly as much food. Which means less food. Without oil we cannot move the food as quickly, which means less ability to sustain populations away from farming areas.

I think you really underestimate how much of the modern world relies on oil. Without it every single construct of modern society comes crumbling down, unless you do it in some 100-year phased project, which is probably what the natural taper off of oil usage will be anyway.

It's like turning off electricity to the world overnight, people will die. Food rots, doesn't move, nobody eats, people die.

Are you familiar with famines? Well you would be if we got rid of oil.

I don't think we're going to have much of a choice but to return to a simpler mode of living. Industrial materialism is literally destroying our own habitat; it is but a matter of time until the unbalance is so great that the entire system collapses in favor of a more sustainable matrix.

It's not "why can't we go back", it's "when will we go back".

a reply to: James1982
Well, where there are emergencies there could be exceptions.
Yeah food may rot, but by my experience food delivered to refugees or famines is food that doesn't rot very quickly.
Otherwise just encourage local crops and trade.
Food's rotting right now just to keep prices stable, and people are leaving their countries because they're hungry.
How has big oil made it any better?

originally posted by: halfoldman
a reply to: James1982
Well, where there are emergencies there could be exceptions.
Yeah food may rot, but by my experience food delivered to refugees or famines is food that doesn't rot very quickly.
Otherwise just encourage local crops and trade.
Food's rotting right now just to keep prices stable, and people are leaving their countries because they're hungry.
How has big oil made it any better?

Oil has made it better because there is more food. A LOT more food. Enough to sit around and rot and still have plenty. Enough to give away to starving people in other countries and still have plenty to throw away. All the oil disappears it's not just a little bit of food sitting around that rots. It's ALL the food. How long do you think it takes to get fruits and veggies from Mexico to New York or Washington state via horse or sail ship? Longer than they keep. Take away oil there will be ZERO food aid going to any starving people. Who would give away food when they can't produce enough for themselves?

The reason people starve is not a lack of ability to produce enough food, it's the economic system those people are living it. Even if we have more than enough food around here in the US, it takes money, and oil, to ship to all those starving people. And those starving populations increase because we keep feeding them so their population never reaches an equilibrium with their available food supplies.

And you still haven't addressed how you are going to make all this happen, without killing everyone except the amish. It's been fun but this seems a bit one-sided as you haven't answered any of my questions yet, so I think this will be my last reply until then.

a reply to: James1982
Just because people in New York and Mexico might have to eat different freshly grown foods (especially seasonally) doesn't mean they're going to starve.

Where people are starving is because of wars and misguided agricultural policies.
And people are almost starving because they've given up their subsistence agriculture to grow crops meant for export that have no food value for themselves.
One great tragedy here is also the local fishermen losing their fishing rights and livelihoods because of vast fishing companies that come into our waters powered by big oil, and they strip everything clean in the ocean, and sell our resources in other countries.
That could also be slowed down by only allowing sailing vessels.
Less oil for transport equals more local food and resources and definitely not starvation.

Why can't countries who want to eat prawns keep their own shrimp/prawn farms?
Why must Thailand's mangrove swamps be poisoned with chemicals and waste from these farms, while the locals get nothing?
They don't find their own shrimps anymore.
No, no - less exploitation and big oil driven trade will mean more food and less starvation.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, you are assuming that the fossil fuel industry is obsolete and that new technologies are already at a point where they could effectively replace coal etc. I contend that we aren't at that point yet and that the only thing carbon taxes will do is hurt middle class and poor people.

When renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel through a natural advance in technology I will be all for its implementation. I am against the artificial price increase of a carbon tax that will only hurt people. As you so aptly pointed out the corporations don't care one way or the other since their profits won't ultimately be affected.

So perhaps we both want the same thing. I only want it to be a natural progression and not some artificial, political agenda that only hurts the common people and rewards corporations.

Whatever its merits, what I like about the responses to my hypothesis so far is that everybody seems somewhat concerned with human welfare in general (not wanting people to starve or face violence) and there's none of the immediate divisions about "that group" or "this group", who can just go perish.

As such, thanks to all for your views and humanity, even if I sometimes wonder if the reflection of another scenario makes us look any better.

originally posted by: halfoldman
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.

Can't wait to see New York City on horseback. Current population of New York city is 8.5 million. Lets just say 25% would be on horseback thats 2,125,000 horses. Based on my figures and I feed pretty well. 600 lbs per 43 horses that works out to.... 2,125,000/43=49,418 .... 49,418*600 lbs=29,650,800 lbs 29,650,800/2000=14825 tons of hay every day.

According to Perdue University hay yield per acre is about 160 bales at 50 lbs. each of the second cut, you shouldn't feed first cut the protein level of the hay is too high and good for cows. 160*50 lbs= 8000 lbs. or 4 tons of hay per acre. Give or take most states are different but this is just for comparison. So you would need 741 acres to feed that many horses for one day. You do get 4 cuts per planting, of which 3 you can use for horses. So 741 acres feeds 25% of New City population for 3 days. To feed for the whole year you would need about 140 Sq. miles of hay fields or a city the size of Detroit. Plus you would need an incredible fly deterrent system.

a reply to: NthOther

Yes, well....all the problems have already been solved, alternative energy, in abundance, building materials from hemp resins and home grown quartz in abundance. Computers could be housed in crystal, harddrives certainly, and it doesnt have to be farmed. All the alternative energy. Aquaponics, earthship homes.

We can grow meat, from cloned muscles without killing anything! And organic, not gmo at that!!! Good stuff!!!

We don't have any kind of technological problem but we have CRIMINALS running the show.

And I'm not letting them or anyone reset this planet, they can cough the hell up the goods, stop their exploitation and go to jail like good little psycho's.

Ohhhh, I think it sounds beautiful; Going back to simpler times.
But can I please keep my UTV and ATV? If so, then I'm in!!

But really, just move back in the boonies somewhere and you can cut yourself from the outside world and live like that. The Swiss Alps comes to mind. I would love to go there after watching that show on TV(can't remember the name of it).

I am not a proponent of shutting off anybody's technology, or of 'returning' to tech that people no longer find useful. But with that said, I'd like to point out:



Even halfway through the 19th century, many New Yorkers lived lives that insulated them from contact with horses. They relied on streetcars rather than saddles. One serious first crisis for the Union cause was that many of the first Union draftees has no prior experience with --- horses. The city of New York actually sacrificed its firemen and cabdrivers, since those were the primary occupations outside of teamsters involved in horsemanship.

So, industrialization was at work against horses, even before the automobile.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
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.

OK, prepare:

NO WAR FOR HAY!

(Yes, getting all those fodder for horse would be an issue and would require some minor conquest or maybe starving some Africans by pricing them out of the market)

You can.