Prepare To Survive The Suffering of the New World disOrder

[Ethre]

This sounds very valid, though I doubt the final predictions.

 

It is estimated that the world may have enough oil to year 2030 at current consumption, and enough natural gas to year 2060 if all known reserves were recoverable. Life will not continue as is until every last drop is gone. There continues to be small amounts of oil suspected as reserves around the world, but not in the quantities that will alter the clear shortages and competition for it. It is very unlikely that a child born after 2005 will ever need a driver license, and it is very likely that before 2020 many people around the world will be living without the benefits of oil and will lose the use of natural gas at the same time.

 

I don't know about those reserve numbers. The 2nd sentence (Life will not continue as is until every last drop is gone) sounds very valid though.

With regard to people born after 2005 not needing a drivers license - I'd doubt it. Remember, cars are not inherently based on fossil fuels (though most are). I find it difficult to imagine private personal transport disappearing as a result of oil. Perhaps because of other reasons, but not exclusively by oil.

 

Throughout history, War has been a means of population control

 

I actually remember seeing some arguments that (in the long term) war (non-total war at least) actually increased the population. I'll see if I can find what I saw.

 

So, what do you think about that article? I stumbled upon it last night while looking for some good .308 rifles (ya, I know...very odd).

Not really . . . looking to go hunting in the fall?

 

As for your looking for a rifle, I carried a .308 (7.62mm) M14 in the Marine Corps for 4 years.

I'm pretty certain a 7.62 military is not the same as a .308 civilian round. Similar (and usually interchangeable?), but not identical.

The m14's still in use some, is it not?

[PureSnipe]

The 7.62x58 and the .308 Remington are the same round, same cartridge, but the 7.62 contains more powder. If something is rated for NATO ammo, it can use the civvy version. If it's only rated for civvy, don't even try it cause you might end up dead.

Yes, the M14 is currently in service by the USMC, and potentially other branches, with the designation M21. Semi-auto sniper platform. Extended mag and a 9x scope. Sometimes a suppressor, but usually a flash hider attached to the end of the barrel.

Hammond: Bolt or semi on your 7.62 platform? I know I'm going to suggest something unusual here, but on a bolt platform I'd go for getting a Remington 700 chambering the .300 Win Mag round. Lower ballistics coefficient, more powder, and sure to bruise your shoulder if you don't hold it right. Semi-auto platform, I'd either take that DMPS I suggested or the M14 SOCOM version. If you have a good chunk of money to spend on a rifle, I'd get a .338 Laupa. From what I've read/heard, the USMC snipers are phasing out the M24 with the FNH SRS chambering the .338 Laupa, due to the longer range and much, much higher knockdown.

And that comment on the .300 bruising your shoulder is no joke at all.... It kicks like a benelli with 00 buck. Managable though, due to the fact it's more of a push than a sharp kick. Amazingly, it kicks harder than the fifty that's in my sig below :P I've had the pleasure of shooting one of em.

[Michlo]

I'm sure things will get tough but as already stated, world leaders have finally woken up to the fact and are attempting to avoid such dire straits.

 

Cheers.

[PureSnipe]

I'm sure things will get tough but as already stated, world leaders have finally woken up to the fact and are attempting to avoid such dire straits.

 

Cheers.

 

Only problem is, they're making all the wrong choices.

(My take on it due to the fact I'm finishing my last semester of government at the college and pay attention to the news and what happens to the market when things are done. Don't even try and contest me here. If you want to, make a new thread and I'll gladly throw in what I know to be true.)

@Ethre: Love the avatar. Take it that's a U-2?

[Michlo]

I'm sure things will get tough but as already stated, world leaders have finally woken up to the fact and are attempting to avoid such dire straits.

 

Cheers.

 

Only problem is, they're making all the wrong choices.

(My take on it due to the fact I'm finishing my last semester of government at the college and pay attention to the news and what happens to the market when things are done. Don't even try and contest me here. If you want to, make a new thread and I'll gladly throw in what I know to be true.)

@Ethre: Love the avatar. Take it that's a U-2?

 

hehe, would I dare take on a 17yr old? I think not.

 

I don't doubt they won't get it all right but the very fact that they are at least looking at the problem is surely a hopeful sign?

[exanimis]

Here is an interesting video that I believe the readers of this thread might enjoy.

 

LINK

 

 

@Ethre

 

I find it difficult to imagine private personal transport disappearing as a result of oil. Perhaps because of other reasons, but not exclusively by oil.

 

don't forget that oil is essential not only in running your car but in the creation of the materials as well. Without oil there are no plastics, just think of how much plastic is in your car, your PC, your home.

[Michlo]

Wow, great video, Exanimis, thanks for sharing it. I've posted it to my Facebook too.

 

Cheers.

[Vagrant0]

Here is an interesting video that I believe the readers of this thread might enjoy.

 

LINK

 

 

@Ethre

 

I find it difficult to imagine private personal transport disappearing as a result of oil. Perhaps because of other reasons, but not exclusively by oil.

 

don't forget that oil is essential not only in running your car but in the creation of the materials as well. Without oil there are no plastics, just think of how much plastic is in your car, your PC, your home.

Although there are some alternatives... like recycling, or cellulose based plastics, the concept is valid.

 

Honestly though, if it ever gets that bad, not being able to drive to work, or buy whatever consumer products you want will likely be the least of your concerns. Essentially, if it ever gets this bad, you're f'ed, end of story. The best thing for most people to do is to become aware of those positive things which are being done to prevent this happening, and maybe help them along by buying those products made with recycled or green materials, and worry about it when/if it ever happens since most people won't very long to live afterwards. Afterall, the fuel crisis is kinda how the current economic mess was able to perpetuate between the good old days of Enron to today. This country cannot handle living on even $4.00 gasoline, and at $5.00 gasoline, almost every airline and shipping company would be unable to maintain their business without the price of virtually everything being much more expensive. As those things die, so does most of the United States, long before anyone invades, long before any bombs are dropped, the country itself would start to wither as many parts of the country cannot be sustained without constant shipments of goods and supplies.

[Skotte]

This sounds very valid, though I doubt the final predictions.

 

It is estimated that the world may have enough oil to year 2030 at current consumption, and enough natural gas to year 2060 if all known reserves were recoverable. Life will not continue as is until every last drop is gone. There continues to be small amounts of oil suspected as reserves around the world, but not in the quantities that will alter the clear shortages and competition for it. It is very unlikely that a child born after 2005 will ever need a driver license, and it is very likely that before 2020 many people around the world will be living without the benefits of oil and will lose the use of natural gas at the same time.

 

I don't know about those reserve numbers. The 2nd sentence (Life will not continue as is until every last drop is gone) sounds very valid though.

With regard to people born after 2005 not needing a drivers license - I'd doubt it. Remember, cars are not inherently based on fossil fuels (though most are). I find it difficult to imagine private personal transport disappearing as a result of oil. Perhaps because of other reasons, but not exclusively by oil.

<snip>

 

I can see that cars could evolve beyond oil (alternative power & construction) & possibly be inspired by past designs like the "Peel P50"

[TheTerminator2004]

Cheers for posting that article Lhammonds; it gave me a good laugh :)

 

Although, I do find it slightly scary how seriously people are taking it - running out of oil isnt going to destroy the world, and it's hardly cause total war, with governments killing off loads of their own people to survive, as this article seems to suggest. Theres an alternative to everything - cars can be run off any number of things (hell, there was a steam-powered car produced that could do a good 70mph, the only reason it didn't catch on was the success of petrol-powered cars), and tbh its perfectly possible to make synthetic petrol anyway - there was a big plant in New Zealand I think which made it out of methanol (methyl alcohol). Sadly, prices dropped making it unprofitable, but the technology is there, and if prices rise a bit, would still be perfectly viable. Plastics can potentially be made from other materials, and if necessary replaced completely.

 

Articles like that are just over-exaggerated scare-mongering. :)