Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'd take the prophets of the apocalypse a little more seriously if they didn't seem to be looking forward to it so much. I'm not turning my apartment into a compound just yet.
Great video. Wish everyone could see it!
Are we supposed to believe what he's saying and be concerned and conserve energy? Why portray him as crazy and have him spout apocalyptic, hyperbolic nonsense if we're supposed to believe him?
Are we just supposed to laugh at him because he's crazy?
I hope neither was the goal because it fails on both points.
The guys like this who are all stocked up.
Brilliant movie and a very unique artist! I highly recommend to everyone. Thank you Sir.
So what's the message here? Start stockpiling provisions and learn to farm before the End Times, so that you'll be sitting pretty when civilization collapses? Welcome to "peak oil", the latest apocalyptic fad to sweep a deeply anxious country.
The oil crash is pernicious baloney. Not because we’re never going to run out of oil; at some point we are, and it will probably be tough going for a while. The oil crash, as presented here, wraps an apocalyptic philosophy around a kernel of truth. Johnson’s old man says the oil crash will be worse than bird flu and not “…simple, like nuclear war…” (!) From what I’ve read, the whole concept of the oil crash seems to turn on the idea that nothing can replace oil, and conservation of oil will only postpone the inevitable. At this point, you may be wondering what the point of raising awareness of the impending crash is if there is nothing that anyone can reasonably do to prevent it, because I know I am. Of course, we can try to emulate the old man. We can learn how to farm, to distill liquor, and stock up on guns and duct tape. This is what many of the advocates of the oil crash advise, and it is where we discover the raison d’etre for the idea of the oil crash (at least for lay practitioners); sticking it to the people who enjoy Caribbean cruises and “flying off to Paris for shopping” by preparing for the “dark age” now, and making sure you have the “last laugh”. As the old man says, he’ll be ready. He studied farming! And he has land and a stockpile of weapons. Boy, will we be sorry! While we’re burning down our houses and drinking our own urine, he’ll continue his post-industrial, individualistic existence in relative comfort. The oil crash almost becomes a supernatural entity, something that can’t be stopped, and will punish the unbelievers and reward the faithful. Of course, if it does happen the way the old man says, he going to be in big trouble. It won’t be long before a gang of armed people comes along, kills him, and takes all of his stuff. If the armed gang is smart, it will force the old man to farm his land so they can feed more workers and fighters, thus becoming a more effective armed gang. The old man says life after the oil crash will be like it was 200 years ago. He’s a little off the mark; it will probably be more like Medieval Europe with rifles. A feudal society will not tolerate people like the old man, unless they have the military muscle to defend themselves. The people who know how to fight in gangs will have the last laugh.
The biggest problem with this movie is that while the movie is running, this is what I’m thinking about. The 3-D component really has a four years ago feel to it, and the montage in the background has a ten years ago feel to it. The old man is creepy, yes, but mostly because he’s poorly rendered. It's only 3 minutes long; there's no excuse for it to look like this. Why was this a 3D computer video, anyway? So we could switch between all of two locations? Because Mr. Johnson couldn’t find a real old man? With a subject like the end of the civilized world to work with and the unlimited potential of 3D computer animation, you'd think we could get something more interesting to look at than an old coot on a excercycle. With lackluster visuals, the movie leans on the dialogue, which is really not…good. “Stick of dynamite stuck up the timeline of man”? I don’t even know what that means, but it sounds unsavory. Or "if you think that's a bunch of baloney, you just haven't heard the facts" a couple of beats after we're told "it's just a plain and simple fact". If someone is going to keep telling me that I don't have any facts, I would like to hear some.
As the saying goes, "If you want to send a message, call Western Union." I don't know what a post-oil-crash telegram office will look like, but I can guess what the message will look like: "We'll be running out of oil soon, and nothing anyone can do will stop civilization as we know it from ending completely. Get some duct tape.”
for those of you who don't take the notion of resource depletion seriously. I'll be laughing along with this cartoon...except that I am real.
Oh yes: Starving people are generally too weak to survive long enough to band together in cooperative armed gangs and seek isolated hoarders at random in the hinterlands. Read some actual history. It looks good on television, but the reality will be a LOT different.
Your future: No food off the shelves, no potable water...and most importantly, no knowledge at all of how to live off the land...just enough knowledge to shuffle paper, send e-mails, and play X-Box.
(But you all know how to laugh...and scoff.
Good for you...)
Your response illustrates my point perfectly. It contains all the smarmy, know-it-all, hubris, and all the simplistic, grade-school thinking that enables any doomsday philosophy. Above all, there is the devotion to a world of extremes. Either we live like we live now (with reasonably abundant fossil fuels), or we live in a post technological wasteland. People don't slowly starve; the minute they miss a meal they are to weak to do anything (it's surprising the human race has lasted this long, no?). And, of course, either you subscribe to this nonsense, or you're not taking the "the notion of resource depletion seriously.".
Of the two of us, I'm not the one who should be reading my history. You should look back to any time where resources were scarce. I mentioned the Medieval period, and it's a perfect example. Why do you think, Anonandon, that the farms of the day were worked by peasants who served a lord? The lord's military power protected the peasants from the people who would take the food they produced. Those castles that overlooked the farmlands and the towns were not there to look pretty; they were military installations that protected a valuable resource.
Of course, you probably knew that, seeing as you know everything worthwhile to know about the past, present, and future (unlike like us e-mail shuffling, X-Box playing, scoffers). So here are a few questions:
It sounds like you're going "to live off the land". Are you going to restrict yourself to an existence of hunting and gathering? Or are you going to farm? If you're going to farm, how do you plan to keep the three or four acres you work hidden from the the starving people desparately searching for food?
Just in case people don't drop dead after a few days without a McDonalds, how do you plan to stop the people who will try to take the food you have? How do you plan to stop a concerted, armed attack by two or more people (last time I checked, firearms don't run on gas)? Do you have any friends who can help you (keeping in mind that more people on your farm means more land to protect)? Do you think you could shoot a family to death for stealing your food? If not, how will you stop people from just sneaking in and taking your food? Do you plan on sleeping?
Finally, what's with the schadenfraude (if not outright gleeful anticipation) about the literally billions of people who will starve to death if the oil crash happens like you say it's going to happen? If there was a way to prevent mass starvation, maybe by conserving and supporting viable alternatives to fossil fuels, wouldn't it be your moral responsibility as a human being to do so? What if the Greenhouse Effect outruns the depletion of fossil fuels? There are so many problems with the way we live, but there are also many possible solutions, if we're willing to work for them; why is it that the only thing you can come up with is "I'll get some land, and watch people starve. And I'll laugh."
What kind of person thinks that's an honorable way to live?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
