Was he right?

Was he right?

MK-ULTRA really messed him up

Not an argument. How does that affect the validity of his statement?

Yes, in the long run, it will be the death of the planet

He was just a sperglord butthurt he couldn't get laid lmao

The IR single-handedly led to a world population of over 7.4 billion people.

Yes. Burn the cities.

So you're saying he was right.

Meh, the planet will always self-regulate itself.

I never understood the logic
>society will eventually collapse and billions will perish!
>to prevent that, we need a revolution which will make society collapse and kill billions in the process.

I'm saying he's not wrong.

The planet can regulate itself, the issue is about the human race.

Since we have to breathe oxygen, drink pure water and eat food in order to survive we have to keep a planet that can produce those things, otherwise we die.

A human made global scale catastrophe which can kill our species is a possible thing from the science point of view, so some mad people want to deliberately make society collapse seeing in this the only way to save the human race.

We always have this thread, please stop.

I find it annoying how people always find some arbitrary date to go back to, the pre Industrial age had dozens of draw backs. If you actually want to improve things you need to go back before the rise of agriculture.

Why single this thread out? Literally half the fucking board is regurgitated shitposts about the same meme topics of history. Hell, the daily Civil War threads even use the same exact OP image every time.

He makes some good points but his revolution will never happen because people are now (and were even back then) hooked into their comfortable but stagnant lives, and are afraid of losing the security that comes with that. Most people shudder at the idea of even losing their job, never mind their entire way of life, they'll even go as far as to fight to protect it. It's the only life they know.

To be fair you didn't present his argument for us to argue against.

The argument is the quote in the OP pic.

Paleos are a bunch of morons that have rose-tinted glasses when it comes to "our hunter gatherer ancestors". The contemporary era has a lot of problems that we need to solve but it's still sure as shit better than going back innawoods. There's no going back, let's have some REAL solutions please.

>hurr durr look I'm smarter than an actual genius!

but Ted shared your opinion about paleos

Teddie boy here ripped the nostalgic type primitivists to shreds though.

The best case scenario for humanity would be a regression to 17th century levels of technology as the high EROEI fossil fuel resources deplete, the most likely scenario is a population of 9-12 billion facing a sudden collapse unable to recover because the oceans have been emptied of fish, the soil is depleted of nutrients, and the forests have been clear cut

That image is retarded.

Not an argument.

Why Ted? Why has it been a disaster?

Ha! Good point, never thought about it like that.

This alone should be enough to convince sane people that Kaczynski is onto something. I don't want to blow up any airports or anything, but if something isn't done about all this unchecked reproduction something terribly ugly is going to come of it.

There's a kernal of truth. Industrialism has resulted in a lot of evils that aren't acknowledged in popular accepted dialog.

But there are still good things and altogether technology is awesome.

no

it will literally create a utopia along with the tech revolution

I feel this entire situation ironic because we are alive, relatively healthy, and able to communicate through the internet due to the industrial revolution.

I'd probably still be alive but also healthier without it. But I can call you a stupid cuck faggot from the other side of the planet so we've got that going for us if nothing else.

>I'd probably still be alive but also healthier without it.
unless you catch a cold

shit happens

I was wondering, once we use up fossil fuels does the global population drop back to pre-industrial levels?

Biofuels are a joke because:
1) they use up arable land that could've been used to grow food crops
2) regional warming will negatively affect crop yields anyway
3) we're using the highest quality arable land right now, and as it turns to shit from turbofarming we're left with low quality crap
4) we're also depleting available water reserves too fast
5) agriculture at its current scale is not possible without fossil fuels to begin with

Without fast global transport many places will lack the materials and equipment to produce and distribute things like food, electricity, medical supplies and so on. Digitalisation will eventually be canceled as well since there's no way to replace electronics that inevitably break down at some point, which is pretty big since pretty much everything is managed through electronic communications now. Solar and wind can theoretically power a society, but only a much smaller society with less services and luxuries for everyone.

>once we use up fossil fuels

Never gonna happen.

Please elaborate.

>once we kill the last dodo
Never gonna happen.

>Let's go back to being hunter gatherers to live terrible and short lives spent worrying about food
Sounds great

>let's shitpost
sounds great

Petroleum engineers find new oil fields all the time.

We are also starting to get useful green energy.

At some point oil is going to only be used for cars and plastic, and even cars might become oil-free in the future.

The age of oil isn't going to end with every drop of oil used up, just like the Bronze Age didn't end because we mined all the ore for it.

Oh no

>Petroleum engineers find new oil fields all the time.
You may wish to research this subject.

I'm literally educated on this subject. I'm a geologist.

Alright then. Do the new discoveries match the rise in demand for oil? How likely is the trend of new discoveries to continue at a rate that generates a buffer that prevents critical shortages from occuring before we are able to update infrastructure make alternative fuels commercially viable? Not that there won't be a massive downsizing of economic activity since alternatives simply aren't as ideal as oil. And what if there simply isn't an interest in transitioning away from oil before it's too late?

The point is that it's possible to create an equilibrium where clean energy is used for everything except cars and plastic.

If China and the U.S stopped burning oil for energy, then we wouldn't be using even a fraction of the oil we are using now, which means it would never run out either.

>agriculture was a mistake

t. unknown tribal elder

You don't think that using oil to power personal cars is not possibly the dumbest and least efficient use of the precious resource? Really?

>create an equilibrium
What kind of an equilibrium can be maintained if it depends on the perpetual discovery of new oil fields? It's not consistent, you could go years or even decades without a major discovery, or they could all have poor EROEI due to being in hard to reach places and/or being heavy crude oil. It's like saying we'll be fine because there's a lot of tar sand and kerogen.

>You don't think that using oil to power personal cars is not possibly the dumbest and least efficient use of the precious resource?

Cars are already invented and are used for transport. You can't uninvent them.

You might not like it, but what the fuck are you going to do m8? Outlaw cars and have everyone walk to work?

>The Gatherer Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>The Hunting Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>The Pastoral Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>The Horticulturial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>The Second Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
>The Information Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

There will undoubtedly come a time when we have to reconsider the current system (for reasons other than immediate fuel shortages). Electric railways are more energy efficient when operating at full capacity when compared to personal cars, even electric cars. Shame we didn't design all of our infrastructure around rail transport and shorter distances between homes, services and workplaces.

Cars do not have to be uninvented, they can and probably should become obsolete with the exception of emergency vehicles as they serve a rather important purpose.

So how are people going to get to work?

Answer the 2nd point he made "Geologist"

The entire modern world was founded on cheap oil. It is very unlikely that it can go on without cheap oil. The overwhelming majority of transport is handled by vehicles that run on oil. Cities and supply routes are built around vehicles that run on oil. Economic growth in capitalist countries has been founded on the increasing consumption of oil.

"How will people get to work?" is the least of our problems.

Oil is very valuable, so it's not like anyone is going to stop looking for new oil fields.

>"How will people get to work?" is the least of our problems.

It's literally THE PROBLEM. Because if people can't get to work, they will not keep up productivity and the society will collapse.

Actually it just means that contemporary economics will become meaningless and base production will require most of the available human labor.

Have fun dying at 33 due to infection and/or tuberculosis

>Meh, the planet will always self-regulate itself.
In the sense that there will almost certainly be some life-form that can repopulate the planet, sure.

But I'm not sure that it would be such a great thing if everything more complex than a worm died out.

A new energy source will be used as per all of human history.

What the fuck is your point? Are you that much of a Luddite that you don't understand what a fucking catastrophe it would be for the entire world if nobody had the means to go to work?

Maybe you shouldn't romanticize billions of people dying from starvation.

I am not a luddite, I don't know why you're calling me one. I'd prefer if there was a way to avoid all these problems but science and technology can't produce solutions on demand. If I didn't like technology I wouldn't own a device from which to post on /int/.

>I'd prefer if there was a way to avoid all these problems

So would I, but it doesn't start by denying where we are currently.

He wasn't wrong.

What's the difference between Stalin's Regime and the Industrial Revolution?

Stalin died.

Oil won't magically disappear one day. When it becomes scare (whether through low global reserves or through artificial scarcity via taxes or w/e) governments will (or should, if they aren't retarded) start rationing oil reserves out. The people who will be most affected by these changes are the comfy suburbfags (t.) who need to drive 10 miles every day to get to their shitty retail job in the next town over.

People in the big cities won't give a fuck because the cities will just expand their subway networks with more trains and eventually larger networks. The entirety of The Loop in Chicago is like 6 sq miles, it's an easy walk from the L to your destination.

As well, governments would give out oil resources to farmers to ensure there's a steady supply of food.

With the exception of the past 200 years, humans burned wood for the previous 100,000 years

There are no new energy sources

Once the oil, gas, and coal are gone it's game over. They're the only sources of energy that can provide enough surplus energy to allow things like nuclear energy and solar panels to exist, without fossil fuels the agricultural and food distribution system falls apart and the nuclear physicist will go back to working as a farm labouer or hunter gatherer like his ancestors

That's not what he said.

Face it. Post-industrial society is not going back without

1) Massive consensus that going back is a good idea (you don't have this.)
2) Massive violence (you don't have this)
3) Massive birth rate shrinkage (you don't have this)
4) Massive censorship (destruction of our digital infrastructure, our libraries, our books, our knowledge, our education system, and the desire to learn)


Even if most of society was OK with Ted K's ideas, they wouldn't be able to implement them.

Even if most of society was able to implement Ted K's ideas, there'd still be pockets of resistance. Those pockets of resistance would rapidly grow stronger than the "hunter gatherer" communities.

It is naive and counterproductive to force history to "rewind" to some golden age that never was.

He was right.

>mfw I work in the Canadian oil sands as a petroleum engineer
>mfw people seriously think this shitty ultra heavy sulfur contaminated shit will actually be able to replace sweet light crude
>mfw fracking has been around since 1947 but it's only been used recently because all the good oilfields are already discovered and most have peaked
>mfw fracking reserve estimates are a meme because you will run out of water before they ever get fully extracted
>mfw the amount of truck trips and gasoline burned needed for carrying chemicals, sand, water, supplies, equipment, and workers to drill sites to extract the oil makes the EROEI a joke
>mfw oil companies have insane amounts of debt they could barely even pay off when oil was $110 a barrel
>mfw most oil majors aren't fracking because they realize it's basically a ponzi scheme for stupid investors so they just stick to maintaining their declining conventional fields

top kek everyone who's been in the oil industry for a long time know it's on it's last legs and the good days are long gone especialy with the recent downturn(probably the worst in histroy), after the next financial crisis once the debt lending spree dries up we're totally fucked

Fuck off brainlet, Ted was right and you know this, you cuck.

Yeah okay sure whatever bud

No, thats the conclusion of an argument.

>mfw oil companies have insane amounts of debt they could barely even pay off when oil was $110 a barrel
Luckily for them, the barrel price will go up. A lot.

Thanks

>we have to keep a planet that can produce those things, otherwise we die.

that's what mars is gonna be for

Mars is inhospitable to human life and too far away for interplanetary shipping. Please ask for more information.

Nah. The only places still growing are places with large infant mortality rates.
Really just Africa and the Middle East. Everywhere else is slowing down or actively bleeding population.

Most models put the world population capping at around 8-9 billion and then shrinking.

Well actually we could double down on nuclear and we could sustain a country's power grid on nuclear alone.
New nuclear reactors produce more energy and far less waste, with much of the waste being recyclable for use in more reactors.
It's getting through the red tape and fear mongering and the startup costs that are the issue there.

Good riddance, once superconductors are made viable for mass production solar will become too efficient not to use.

on an adequately long timeline it wouldn't even make a difference. Terra has bounced back from way worse than us. If we as a species lack the foresight to stave off our own destruction than I say good riddance, lets hope whatever fills the vacuum we leave fares better.

>because all the good oilfields are already discovered and most have peaked

Stop lying.

ME has a pretty low infant mortality rate. South Asia on the other hand...

>thinking was a mistake
t. monkey

Again, expecting us to find new (ideal) oil deposits at a rate that matches projected or even current consumption is not a strategy. It's wishful thinking. There would be gaps between discoveries, and the lenght and occurrence of those gaps is completely unpredictable.

>Again, expecting us to find new (ideal) oil deposits at a rate that matches projected or even current consumption is not a strategy.

Nobody would ever use this bullshit argument against any other natural resource.

Coal never ran out, and humanity used it for 150 years, and still does in many parts of the world.

he gave his life for our sins