Civil unrest,FUEL COSTS,

[Mr Ed]

I think it was based on the idea of 'the serf works for all, the priest prays for all, the Knight fights for all.'

 

It was a deeply unfair system, as the the serfs did all the work, but could never aspire to owning their own land. Plus, the ancient woodlands that had provided food shelter and building materials for hunderds of years were now purely the domain of the king and his barons.

 

History sucked.

[Mr Ed]

Power needs to be addressed now, with the only viable option being a programme of new nuclear powers stations. The inefficiency and unreliability of wind power rule it out as an alternative, along with solar power, because other than in some minor domestic installations, it is unworkable. In any case, if the current experiments with nuclear fusion continue to be successful then it will be 'bye bye' to the oil and gas industries anyway.

 

 

 

On the point of Nuclear power, I think mankinds safety record makes it a very dubious option (for me).

I'm not 'anti nuclear', and have always been fascinated by the technology, particulary fast breeder reactors. BUT...

 

You also have to take into account the vast amount of oil and gas it takes to build a nuclear plant. It takes 10 years of generating just to payback the concrete bill. and think of the carbon footprint of all that concrete.

 

Plus, unless it is a fast breeder, it requires lots of Uranium digging out of the ground. and if you do a bit of research, you realize that we reached a 'peak uranium' about 10 years ago.

 

So I dont think that nuclear power is ideal.

[Dagmar]

Feudalism, a term first used in the early modern period (17th century), in its most classic sense refers to a Medieval Europe political system comprised of a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.

 

So where do you see yourself in this system Lee, and how do you see it emerging from the breakdown of our technological society?

 

A return to fuedal principles would be unlikely due to the educational and social changes that we have witnessed in the last century or so. For a while anyway. In order to maintain a degree of modern society and rule of law etc., I would think that a system based on localism, such as the French commune, would work. Probably work very well without a centralized government to cock it up!

[Mr Ed]

Camarades! venir la révolution, notre ordre social se répandront la perfection à travers le monde!

[Dagmar]

On the point of Nuclear power, I think mankinds safety record makes it a very dubious option (for me).

I'm not 'anti nuclear', and have always been fascinated by the technology, particulary fast breeder reactors. BUT...

 

You also have to take into account the vast amount of oil and gas it takes to build a nuclear plant. It takes 10 years of generating just to payback the concrete bill. and think of the carbon footprint of all that concrete.

 

Plus, unless it is a fast breeder, it requires lots of Uranium digging out of the ground. and if you do a bit of research, you realize that we reached a 'peak uranium' about 10 years ago.

 

So I dont think that nuclear power is ideal.

 

I don't disagree. But, if society decides that it wants to continue as it is without making any major changes, then nuclear power is the only viable option.

 

It would keep the lights on and eke out the fossil fuel reserves. I suspect that is route we may take - if only because we elect short-sighted short term governments who rarely have any real vision.

 

BTW, the 'carbon footprint' of anything is irrelevant.

[Mr Ed]

 

BTW, the 'carbon footprint' of anything is irrelevant.

 

[Jason James Gairn]

I don't disagree. But, if society decides that it wants to continue as it is without making any major changes, then nuclear power is the only viable option.

 

It would keep the lights on and eke out the fossil fuel reserves. I suspect that is route we may take - if only because we elect short-sighted short term governments who rarely have any real vision.

 

BTW, the 'carbon footprint' of anything is irrelevant.

 

French commune? tell me more. agree totally with short term govt. point. Unfortunately, any long term policy would mean unelectability for any party. Mainly because the electorate is so short sighted too on the whole.

Explain the `carbon footprint' irrelevance. I don't know what you mean.

[Mr Ed]

I have work for the German Comune's. Basicaly a better version of our local authority's.

[Dagmar]

 

 

 

There's plenty of information around the web and in print media, both for and against, but take it on balance and you can't help think that we are being conned. Why? It's a lot easier to talk up a minor problem or invent a non-problem than to tackle the real problems. It diverts peoples minds and if you can get them scared then they'll accept things that should really be unacceptable in a free, democratic society.

 

 

 

 

 

Part of an article by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), from his website.

 

 

“.......................One also could build a case against man's "carbon footprint," another fiendishly effective green-sponsored image and a term Krauthammer uses matter-of-factly even as he logically details the possibility that Earth's own massive outpouring of CO2 very well may dwarf man-made carbon output into total irrelevance.

 

Let's consider a few facts. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature. CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth's greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with manmade CO2 emissions.

 

If that's not enough, we can look at graphs of the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature. Ice core data going back 650,000 years show that global temperatures increase before CO2 levels. Data from the 20th century indicate no particular relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature.

 

Finally, there is no scientific proof that the current level of atmospheric CO2 or that levels projected by the United Nations - about 700 ppm by 2095 if no greenhouse gas regulations are put in place - has or will cause any harm to the environment. Alarmist gloom-and-doom forecasts also are based on nothing more than the rankest speculation dressed up as computer models that remain wholly unverifiable.

 

Yet, despite all this lack of evidence, the solitary term "man's carbon footprint" manages to concretize the notion of mankind producing indelible damage upon the Earth while in the process of stampeding its flora and fauna. For any effective critique of global warming hysteria, we have to move beyond these powerful yet baseless buzz words that undermine any rational case in which they are found.”

 

 

Read the complete article here:http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

 

The site is well sourced and Ray presents his arguments logically and with due reference.

[Lee Winger]

 

So where do you see yourself in this system Lee, and how do you see it emerging from the breakdown of our technological society?

 

 

Hum hard one that, maybe nomadic ak47 totting pasturalist, or paranoid scared farmer [something like the farmers from the Magnificent 7]

 

 

Or I might gather the clans and become the next Ghengis Khan.............. yeah that sounds better, I want an instant end to civilised society now now now, wink wink , i'm going to invade Surrey first orf! far too many rich capitalists and yuppies live/lived down that way..