Title: HICHERSON
TOMORROW -- WHAT?
The below was sent to me from Robert Hickerson. It
appears that he got emails from a variety of people and just who is responsible
for these emails I have not determined. But all in all, the content is
interesting.
Hicherson�s email is followed by my comments.
Subject: genocide
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 10:03:45 -0700
From: "Robert L. Hickerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Johnny Holiday/John A. Taube" <technocrat@technocracysforg>
CC: "J. Q. Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This from the energy net. (death certificates have already been issued for billions of unsuspecting people.)
Robert
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 05:22:03 -1000
From: "Jay Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [energy resources] Prediction
FWD From: "Badenhorst, Casper (CH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There is one serious flaw with our assumptions and arguments so far, and that is to underestimate -or ignore - the leverage politics and power wielders have.
We can extrapolate consumption and depletion rates up to a critical point, but then power and politics take over. To state that we will have no cheap energy left within 50 years, without acknowledging the role of intelligence institutions serving the real rulers of the world is foolish. They will make plans to ensure the last reserves of energy are properly distributed between the very rich and powerful few, ... to stretch their possibility of comfortable existence as far as possible into the future. This will mean military interventions, regulations and take-overs to ensure the right people has the right resources under control. The monetary advantages to them will be easy to grasp. The class separation that will be inevitable will be too ghastly to contemplate.
Methinks.
>Kermit, >
I don't have time to reply to all your points, and since most seem reasonably
accurate I don's really need to. However, there are some that I think warrant
a response. 1) We will probably NEVER run out of hydrocarbons. However,
we will run out of CHEAP hydrocarbons in the near term and the economic
and social consequences are likely to be catastrophic since we have built
a world system based on cheap energy.
Moderator note: Here is my most-likely scenario.
[ snip from http://dieoff.com/page 185.htm ]
Worldwide, more than 10 million hectares of agricultural land are abandoned annually because of serious
soil degradation. During the last 40 years, about 30 percent of total world arable land was abandoned because it was no longer productive. About half of the current arable land now in cultivation will be unsuitable for food production by the middle of the twenty-first century. [33]
Within the first decade of the 21'st century, industrial activity will rise high enough for it to seriously degrade land fertility. This will occur because of contamination by heavy metals and persistent chemicals, climate change, salinization, topsoil loss, falling water tables, and increased levels of ultraviolet radiation from a diminished ozone layer.
Global oil production will peak soon and the spike in oil prices will quickly exacerbate other major problems facing industrial agriculture. Food grains produced with modern, high-yield methods (including packaging and delivery) now contain between four and ten calories of fossil fuel for every calorie of solar energy. It has been estimated that about four percent of the nation's energy budget is used to grow food, while about 10 to 13 percent is needed to put it on our plates. In other words, a staggering total of 17 percent of America's energy budget is consumed by agriculture! [34]
By 2040, we would need to triple the global food supply in order to meet the basic food needs of the eleven billion people who are expected to be alive. But doing so would require a 1,000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production. [35] But the depletion of oil will make it physically impossible -- thus economically impossible -- to provide enough net energy to agriculture: "A recent review of the future prospects of all alternatives has been published. The summary conclusion reached is that there is no known complete substitute for petroleum in its many and varied uses." [36] Global food production will drop to a fraction of today's numbers: "If the fertilizers, partial irrigation [in part provided by oil energy], and pesticides were withdrawn, corn yields, for example, would drop from 130 bushels per acre to about 30 bushels." [37] Obviously, death certificates have already been issued for billions of unsuspecting people.
The dependence of industrial agriculture on fossil fuels, the declining fertility of the land, and the positive feedbacks imposed by declining net energy will force the economy to divert much more investment into the agriculture and energy sectors as part of a desperate attempt to maintain agricultural output. Government budgets must also decline in real terms as greater and greater fractions of the economy are diverted into the resource sectors.
As resource quality and land fertility continue to fall, society will be forced to allocate more and more capital to the agriculture and resource sectors, otherwise the scarcity of food, materials, and fuels would restrict production still more -- it's circular, there is no way to avoid the positive feedback. Ultimately, industrial capacity will decline rapidly taking with it the service and agricultural sectors, which depend upon industrial inputs.
Constrained by the laws of thermodynamics, the availability of life-supporting resources will go into a permanent, steep decline.
In less than 20 years, the self-regulating market system will have "run out of gas" and vanished. With the market system gone, the ruling elites will fall back on the good old-fashioned means of control: a police state. In the US alone, 200 million guns in private ownership guarantee that this police state will quickly devolve into rebellion and anarchy.
If the anarchy scenario were to reach its natural conclusion, the global elites would be eliminated by the angry masses. Those who managed to escape would die more miserably than the poor since they are unsuited for day-to-day survival because they lived their lives like queen bees.
But when the above scenario seems inevitable, the elites will simply depopulate most of the planet with a bioweapon. [38] When the time comes, it will be the only logical solution to their problem. It's a first-strike tactic that leaves the built-infrastructure and other species in place and allows the elites to perpetuate their own genes into the foreseeable future: "War is a male reproductive strategy. All that is needed for the strategy to evolve, is that aggressors fight and win more often than they lose". [39]
The global genocide will be rationalized as a second chance for humanity - a new Garden of Eden -- a new Genesis. The temptation will prove irresistible:
"Strangelove said, �Off hand, I should say that in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.
"The arrow had not missed its mark, and around the table there was an outbreak of sober, nodding heads. Attention was concentrated more than ever on Doctor Strangelove.
"Strangelove went on. Naturally they would breed prodigiously, eh? There. would be much time and little to do. With the proper breeding techniques, and starting with a ratio of, say, ten women to each man, I should estimate the progeny of the original group of two hundred thousand would emerge a hundred years later as well over a hundred millions"'
How could be otherwise?
[ references at http://dieoff.com/page l85.htm ]
COMMENTS
We live in the only scientific-technological age ever known. We moved from an extremely primitive agrarian age, an age that had its own unique problems. But as the above material points out we also have problems. While the problems of the agrarian age made for extremely uncomfortable living, they were not of the huge threatening nature as ours are today.
Among Technocracy�s literature, its article �The Ecology of Man [Woman]� is very pertinent to the material above. In this Technocracy article, the author notes the fact that we Homo sapiens are the dominant species on Earth. He goes on and writes on the premise that our position of being dominant can change.
The article was written in 1946. Since that time, has our way of life been such that we have put in danger our status of being the dominant species? Also the question can be asked if we have put in danger our survival? All evidence is that the answer to these two questions is a strong yes.
Technocracy is the only organization that has laid out a design of social
operation that makes society
compatible with science, or better put, with modern times. With the
adoption of Technocracy�s design, the essential points of the above article,
which are so negative, can be reversed.
Technocracy, however, does not have a �magic bullet.� Technocracy is not talking about �waving a magic wand� and all of our problems will disappear. Technocracy doesn�t promote �fairy tale� solutions.
Technocracy�s solution to modern day problems are based on science. Check them out.
