IMPORTED FOOD 2
If you look at Europe and
its colonies, you could call that the Western Empire which lasted roughly five
centuries ( the US is an Oil Empire, even if it gets its oil from
colonies. The resource dynamics are
similar but different enough in content delivery to be considered separate
). Each nation state waxed and waned in
power, with simultaneous centers battling for supremacy at times. Think of Portugal and Spain, England and
France as the historical equivalent of Greece and Persia. They were collectively one empire, the
historical norm slightly skewed due to the internal discord.
*
The normal period of an
imperial lifespan, according to some, is around ten generations or 250
years. The infighting of the European
neighbors was probably what kept the empire from falling into the normal cycle
of Discovery, Riches, Decay. The life
spans of each entity taking its turn at the helm of emperor ( or, a somewhat
equal co-leadership at times ) was either much shorter or even a bit longer
than the historical norm because of the constant military tensions disallowing
complacency ( in other words, no one had time to rake in and enjoy all the
treasure ).
*
The Papist Empire lasted
much longer than the normal 250 years-they were closer to a thousand ( the
original Thousand Year Reich ). I would
attribute this to the much slowly cycle of the time period as there were far
less resources available after the fall of Rome. Less rapine, further time between the cycles
of growth and decay. The
European/Western colonial empire had a much larger pool of resources to exploit
than was the historical norm, and they imported better military technology to
the colonies and exported the choicest resources ( think of the calories
inherent in the potato compared to indigenous root crops. How much of that alone helped cold Russia
expand or survive? ).
*
Our Oil Empire couldn’t
have lasted as long as the historical norm because of the compressed time frame
in which it took place. When you are the
apex predator, and you over-exploit, the resources run out much faster. Russia was never an Oil Empire, despite its
early pumping and huge reserves, as it was held back industrially by its Czar
and serf caste system. Communism might
have sucked for them, but it did force them into the empire game which defended
them ( otherwise they would have been nominally independent but still
subservient to us or the Germans-hell,
perhaps even the Japanese ). Not to say
they were military insignificant, but their might was prior to
industrialization on the massive scale it became. Things could have turned south for them if
they has remained the same AFTER the US turned full on imperial.
*
The situation the US is in
is really quite straightforward. We were
an Oil Empire and the oil is running out.
Once the wheat supply started contracting for Rome, it was all over but
the fat lady singing. We are at the point,
due to overpopulation, of being dependent on imported oil to feed us. The amber waves of grain of yore cannot to
planted, fertilized, harvested or transported without oil. Of which at a minimum half is imported ( the
economic contraction is from the falling BTU of oil, not any falling volume ),
varying with the Fracking Fields yields-which are already in a steady if modest
decline.
*
China is a whole other
story, as they never were an Oil empire.
Just as Japan is far from independent energy wise and must live off the
kindness of its neighbors ( they didn’t attack Pearl Harbor for any other
reason than we were embargoing their oil.
The Dutch and English colonies were old and decrepit and their empires
in severe decline-they were easy fruit to pluck. But the US was already considering the
Pacific their own bathtub and Japan wasn’t invited to play. It was a combination of more oil than
Indonesia could provide and the issue of eventual US involvement that forced
Japan’s hand. And FDR was only too glad
to help-he slipped the dildo up Americas ass lubricated with the blood of
servicemen ).
*
China is at most a Coal
Empire. Yes, they are now importing more
oil than the US, but they built an industrial country with coal. The oil input is in a large part for the
private automobile infrastructure they are foolishly building after emulating
America. Or, perhaps not so foolishly if
it doesn’t subsume public transportation.
Perhaps the middle class and wealthy are a disposable commodity to the
ChiCom rulers. They are useful now, as
the carrot to boost productivity ( poverty being the stick ). If they all crash and burn in a severe
Depression, so be it ( the thinking could go ).
Perhaps Capitalism is merely a current strategy that can easily be
jettisoned at need. Bully for them-they
might be commies but at least they aren’t the Butt Boys of the Bankers.
*
Like we are. But, we made our Faustian bargain, didn’t
we? We sold our soul to the Devil for an
empire ( started with the blood of Southerners and immigrants, seasoned with a
few expired Spaniards and a whole lot of Philippine natives, Americans were soon fed into the profit
grinder ). The bankers allowed our oil
to be turned into colonies, allowed our colonies to deliver more oil and as the
black gold disappears the bankers strip mine the infrastructure built with the
treasure. The Chinese by comparison
merely used their coal to build an industrial complex to serve the Oil Empire.
*
China won’t fail because
the US stops buying their crap. The Chinese
will fail because they have used up their energy reserves to build the wealth
pump. Their colonies are unsustainable
without the oil the colonies provide, but just like us, the oil colonies were
exploited decades and wars ago. Do you
seriously believe that Iraq or Syrian or Iranian oil is still abundant? Why?
The average lifespan of an oil field NOT pumped too rapidly is a mere
forty years for serious production.
These places were fought over in WWI!!
And, just BTW, Saudi Arabia became pumping in earnest over fifty years
ago. And they damaged total available
reserves by over pumping many times.
*
China is, at most, rice
self sufficient. Almost all other food
must be imported. Which is done by
burning coal and oil to manufacture goods to sell, getting the wealth to buy
the land and or/food. Which is guarded,
as with all other trade goods shipped over the ocean, by a declining, defunded,
denuded US Navy. Its African and South
American food factories are not sustainable long term, as their Navy is most
likely unable to continue on its own long distances. Vietnam and similar nearby countries, on the
other hand, are soon to be China’s bitch.
As long as they can continue to receive enough fuel for its armed
forces.
*
The basic issue remains,
however. They, and we, are importing
food. They are literally and we are
through the oil that grows all the food.
And overpopulation meeting less imported food always ends badly.
END ( today's related link http://amzn.to/2ByMVpL )
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
I think the USA could feed itself with a FRACTION of the oil we are currently getting (something between 40 -60 % of all oil goes to private transport aka cars and suvs rather than agriculture and industry). A rational re-implementation of trains (electric diesel hybrids) and re instituting our former rail system lines instead of relying on trucking would further extend the oils usability for agriculture. But you are also right - if all oil were to disappear tomorrow, (or the USA were to remain irrational about oil use) hardly anyone would be fed. Oil prices WILL end up causing many industrial farmers to cut corners or get out of the game until the congress critters agree to start subsidizing them further (they already don't pay much taxes on their diesel for their equipment as it is classed as 'off road' diesel).
ReplyDeleteI think the petrodollar collapse will happen too quickly for adaptation.
DeleteUnfortunately you are probably right.
DeleteI see the petro dollar collapse having the following effects here - depending on season either fields will largely lie fallow, or get only hand harvested for local consumption the rest of the crops rotting in the fields - and every farmer will be facing 'bankruptcy' overnight, only the most well established/connected escaping attempted foreclosures.
The ranchers will have a hard time rounding up all their cattle much less getting them to market, but they will be able to feed beef to themselves, their local relatives and neighbors, as most know how to butcher game, and there are pro butchers in almost every other little village around here.
Crime might increase for a little bit as escapees from the big cities head out to find food as far as they can scrounge, beg, borrow, or steal fuel. But since every household is armed violent criminals will become deceased in short order, while a low grade sneak theft of essentials will continue and be blamed on transients (even if there aren't any around) thereafter.
Since the petrodollar collapse isn't smooth (it is going on now) this will be piecemeal occurrences for a while as the prices of fuel ratchet up.
Many described scenarios necessitate a die-off, no way around the math numbers of mouths to feed. If after 50-70 percentile reduction and a decade plus readjustment to pre 1913-ish economy there may be a restart of agri-light industry micro macro society. But there has to be a bloodletting to get everyone singing the same tune. Thus petro dollar/banker/globalist gangarene must be cut off, if possible, to proceed accordingly. Got wheat? Lots of wheat?
ReplyDelete70% reduction? Optimist!
DeleteMy understanding is the US is 90% overpopulated for the carrying capacity of the land WITHOUT oil inputs. We would of course die off initially past the carrying capacity (assuming no outside intervention), perhaps to a 99% level. It seems reasonable that a 99% die off would actually equal the population carrying capacity of the land after mass wildfires consumed the forests, wildlands, cities, and infrastructure. This would destroy much wildlife, wildlife habitat, trees needed for building, structures needed to avoid death from exposure and having someone sneak up and slit your throat during the night. No reason to despair though, plan ahead!
DeletePeace out
I'm guessing the mid 1800's is too high a population to compare, as it was a coal powered economy, mechanized farming ( machines which were animal powered ), and easy ore and abundant forest. The 1700's population still had too far abundant resources even if they were pre-coal. Add in lack of trade to preclude industrial trade from elsewhere. The Indians might have been in the millions pre-plague but they didn't have the metal to build up populations ( militarily, infrastructure ) to our levels. All in all, I think you need to start at 99% die-off for a realistic, denuded soil area, THEN add in the fires and such. Almost asteroid or supervolcano population wipe out are needed for the survivors.
DeleteI just did some quick research on your reply. The lower 48 states have a land mass of approximately 3.1 million square miles. With a current US population of around 320 million, lets just say a 99% die off results in a population of 3.1 million (to make the math easy), so one person per square mile. Is this enough hunting/foraging land per person? NO! I have a book on the California Indians which claims that CA has one of the most bio-diverse ecosystems and the CA Indians rarely even knew of starvation/hunger. Supposedly the MOST productive area of the state was the Santa Barbara area coastline. It could support a human population of one person per 2.5 square miles. Other areas were more like one person per 10 square miles. Now you know why the tribes moved around seasonally and had special "hunting grounds", they couldn't stay in one area very long. They also generally husbanded the land, doing control burns to benefit certain plants and to clear out undesired undergrowth so lightning fires etc. didn't get out of control. Of course, you could have a higher population density with farming and ranching, but few people in those industries now actually have a sustainable business model without petroleum inputs and may watch most or all of their herds and crops die after a grid down event. So they may not be able to sell a small starter flock or seeds to you to start your own farming/ranching venture. I think the hunting/foraging model is the most realistic for the short term (2-3 years?). Keep in mind you'd be foraging after the ecosystem has been destroyed by fire and all the other people are in competition for the few wildlife remaining. Don't forget there should be plenty of ANTS to eat!
DeletePeace out
Incorrect numbers from my faulty memory. The CA carrying capacity before the mass invasion of whites/spanish, (1769?) was 1.49 people per square mile in the paradise of Santa Barbara to .08 people per square mile in the desert regions.
DeleteGood book if anyone's interested.
https://www.amazon.com/Tending-Wild-Knowledge-Management-Californias/dp/0520280431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514351075&sr=1-1&keywords=tending+the+wild
Peace out
I was never much impressed with CA as a whole, sustainable living wise. It never rains ( I've lived in most parts of the state-so I know that is only correct in toto ). Then I found out how massive the public works projects were for the water to the lower half. THEN I started studying survivalism. No, Cali is just a pretend version of Hawaii, the discount version.
DeleteWill the bloodletting help rejuvenate the soil?
ReplyDeleteBefore, cleared areas were fields. So, the battle fertilized the fields. Now, it runs off the asphalt. :)
DeleteGood post today, with many quote worthy gems.
ReplyDeleteIt’s kind of funny when you think about it, but I recall the cold war propaganda about the “evil soviets” and their destructive way of life. Don’t get me wrong, communism is the worst form of government, and brings out the worst in everyone. But while they have their share of societal problems, following the fall of Soviet Russia, the Russians remained a proud people, and held on to their culture. Contrarily, the west fell to the enemy within, adopted, and even set as a precedent, every perverted and destructive social agenda under the sun. The Soviets had tried some of the same social experiments (feminism). However, unlike the west, the Russians are a pragmatic people, and saw the damage caused to the fabric of their society under such systems, and wisely did away with them. The west does not benefit from such common sense as do our formerly red brothers, and will never see the light at the end of tunnel until it is too late.
Russia probably has enough natural resources, that if it came right down to it, and they had to take care of their own, they could probably survive for quite some time, isolated from the rest of the world if necessary. Conversely, the moment the first stomach growls in the US, our modern “snowflake” generation will take to the streets and cause massive civil unrest. Another reason to relocate as far away from any major population center as possible (I would consider 500 miles a minimum). If you remain anywhere near a large metropolitan area, any amount of ammunition you have stored won’t be anywhere enough to save you.
Not doubting your Russian analysis, but I have heard that the divorce rate is even higher than ours. I don't know what that means, except perhaps they haven't outgrown the feminism the commies imposed on them entirely. Russia is/will be sufficient, but they will always have to guard their western soil while the Chinese threaten their eastern borders. I wonder how problematic that will be in the future. As to the 500 mile urban avoidance, I can't see how that is feasible in about every part of the country. On many levels-employment, resupply, etc
Delete“but I have heard that the divorce rate is even higher than ours”
DeleteI think that they’re dealing with a whole different set of problems over there Jim. Life in the former Soviet Union is still rather challenging, and alcoholism is high, while lifespans are shorter. But over there, I would say that the divorce rate has far less to do with their female counterparts than it does here. Our legal system in the west gives the female every incentive to bail on the marriage, and still be awarded the same benefits regardless.
With regards to the feasibility of the outrageous distance that I cited, I’m sure that it isn’t practical for most out there. But really, how much of what’s discussed here is? Right off, not having a car is not feasible for most folks ( I don’t really disagree with you on this, it just seems as if it would quite difficult to pull off, while living in a remote area). You have to re-engineer your life for a post apocalyptic society, and most probably won’t or can’t.
No, most of what's discussed here isn't really all that feasible. Even I can't ( well, won't ) pull it all off. On a lot of levels this stays academic. That said, it is a good starting point, getting as close as possible while moving as far from the norm as possible.
Delete