|
|
|
|
|
|
by corylehey
4172 days ago
|
|
|
Completely comfortable with it. I'd rather have cheap oil subsidize as much technological advancement as possible while we figure out how to replace it with an equal or better solution. If we cant, we'll pay more and use less. I don't think my 7 year old is gonna be living in a mad max scenario. |
|
|
Look at what happens domestically when we have a year or two of recession and take the exponent of that. Now imagine a contracting economy for decades with the rate of contraction accelerating over time.
The "genetically rational" (not hedonic or utility maximizing) selfish-gene course of action in a shrinking pie world is to reproduce as much as you can and then kill as many other people as possible, preferably those from lineages further from yours (other ethnicities). This increases the odds of your offspring successfully reproducing by eliminating their competition. Our genes are ancient, and they know what to do when the famine comes. They don't "care" whether it sucks from the perspective of their sentient but disposable constructs/vehicles. Evolution is amoral, and nature doesn't care about you.
An alternate "genetically rational" strategy is to retreat to the margins and wait for the episode of "Walking Dead" to end, but there'd be competition for good but isolated places to live off the land. In this scenario you'd want to actually look poor, if not be poor, since that would make you less attractive to raiders.
Not exactly a future I want to see. I'd rather just be at ground zero when a nuke hits. Quick and painless.