the conditions are being created by your government and your corporations (same thing) not simple living people who have been forced to live outside of nature for your greed. all who call themselves citizens of any government that is responsible for the destruction of this planet and its nature loving inhabitants will reap the same karma as the ones who pulled the actual trigger of destruction. you are guilty by association. you are cowards for not separating yourself from the guilty.
this movie,along with the other two ones based on harrison's and matheson's novels,namely the omega man and rollerball,sets up a very prophetical landscape which is more or less similar to the way we live today..
When the Left is pushed real hard they'll admit that they side with the Republicans oin their denial that this could happen. Though they do like to exploit fears of this happening to grab power.
Love Jesus and he will love you you doubters I hate you and want you to die you dumb fucking idiots you all shall perish in the flames you dumb fucking heathans you shall all burn for your sinful atrocities against mother earth she shall laugh as you choke on your own poisonous rot you fucks
@unsheepled I read that story! It reminded me of a line from another great film- Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite."
The amazing part about this movie is the way it shows what our world might be like if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Eventually they end up living in two separate worlds where the poor live in a huddled mass, ignored, treated like garbage in the gutters that needing cleaning out. The rich live in lavish worlds where they enjoy things that most of the poor have never even seen. Beef! Strawberries!
This is the end result of unchecked capitalism in a shrinking world.
@ricarleite its just referred to as the Soylent Green them and it is composed by Fred Myrow. The version on the soundtrack is much longer, there are actually edits to it in the film version.
They were talking about overpopulation in the 19th century, there is no such thing it is made up as an exuse to why 1 billion people are now living in utter poverty and on the verge of starvation
@radiofreak56 But, if according to that Nature article the plankton are declining, we are fucked...and I am telling you I hope they are wrong, I really do hope it is pie in the mutherfucking sky, because if it is true...
The reason why they live in poverty is because they are loosers who don't love work and freedom, they want a welfare check and can't get it because their loser country is a socialist slave state which is broke and why the people are starving in the first place
overpopulation is just a myth like limited resources------resources are so abundant just look at the earth!
@oreocookieboy81 "resources are so abundant! Just look at the earth!"
You are a moron. Limited resources is a proven science! It's biology 101! That's why species compete for these limited resources to survive! Because of the industrial revolution humanity has expereinced exponential growth! But when the resources are exhausted, the population will experience logistic growth! I.e. the pupulation number will stop growing, drop, and remain remotely the same. People will suffer. It's science bitch
That's all just lies, the scientists are liberals who are trying to control your money and your freedom. They want you to believe in their lies so you will support their nazi eugenicist abortionist programs like health care reform. You're being manipulated, its just a trick like communism that the elites sell to people to enslave them in a system of perpetual taxation and servitude Tell me all about the poor little animals and all that other whiney liberal junk!
@oreocookieboy81 it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS YOU MORON! It's UNBIASED science! Basic high school and college Freshman BIOLOGY! It's taught in classes that are REQUIRED to pass high school and get a damn diploma! It's not a political argument like global warming, it's a real problem! It is the BASIS OF Logistic Growth and Exponential growth! Not believing the basics of the biosphere becasue its political is like not believing gravity or the dispersion of energy! becasue its literal!
@oreocookieboy81 The science og Biology is not taught be liberal media, its taught by public and private school teachers depsite political affiliation! I was taught this sceince by a Hardcore conservative Republican Sceince Professor. Who voted for McCain! But go ahead prove to me that the science of Logistic and Exponetnaial growth is wrong. It's the basis of Overpopulation and its issues. And if you actually think about it, it makes complete damn sense! Go ahead disprove the science or shut up
@oreocookieboy81 George Soros is a financier and business man!! Not a scientist! Ask any professor who majored in Biology in College! Hell asked someone who ACED Biology in science. Try to dispel entire Scienctifc Theory of logistic growth and exponential growth that people haveknown for years! BEFORE the concept of OVERCONSUMPTION even existed!
George Soros is a multi-billionaire who has convinced you people that he and Al Gore aren't running the world? Who are you to question George Soros and Ted Turner---both billionaires who own half the fucking world and who have convinced you morons that their is some sort of crisis their is no crisis only dumb people like you making mountains out of molehills from the word of George Soros and Al Gore ( a satanist) you ought to be ashamed u phoney
@oreocookieboy81 Here start with this, it is a known law that the environment has LIMITED resources. not unlimited resources. This is why there is competition. Anmials and People Compete for these limited resources to survive. This is a basic principle that IS UNIVERSAL. NO ONE disagrees with that.
Welfare destroys individual autonomy and makes people dependant and servile to the government----then they start to eliminate you like in Nazi Germany -----this is what the liberal elites have in store for all you fools
@oreocookieboy81 I second radiofreak's comment, also I thought welfare was a socialistic thing and I also remember Hitler being super anti socialist. godwin's law has been invoked.
My favorite scene in this movie is where Heston eats the whole apple because he was never taught how to eat one. This is a very well done film about a future that could befall us some time in the future. Unfortunately only the people who have endured natural disasters, war , and famine believe it.
You have to read the book, the ecologist tale called "make room ! make room !" of Harry Harrison. In 1966, the author does not dare to clearly promote his anti-natalist message in a radical way.
When I think about it, it always reminds me of this old man crying because he sees a real tomato. By the way, the actor who plays the old man was really at the end of his life when he made the film, which gives to the final scene an even more harrowing ending.
@dega723 The old man in the movie was screen legend Edward G. Robinson making his 101st and final film. He and Heston were old friends and Chuck wanted him to be in the picture.
I'm not a picky person, just don't feel like eating a hamburger or anything that are processed food because that might have been someone's love ones, or could have been your parents, masseur, fiancée, an idiot, an old couple, your grandma or simply anything that walks with two nice pair of legs...that just doesn't sit well with me. When food is scarce, the weakest link will be a dead man walking, It's happening now...and in future!
As predicted in this movie, the science journal Nature, dated July 28, 2010 reported that the plankton in the oceans are dying, and that there has been a 40% decline in the total volume since 1950. This movie was a major warning to humanity. I hope there is still time before it becomes a reality.
This SCIFI movie could be one of our realistic future outlook... it's pointing in that direction. Btw. it is a shame that some companies are buying water sources in poor countries for making a future big business....Soylent Green is on my Top List of the very best SCIFI movies....and I still hope it will never come true.
@doublemandala I'm curious how much of that is because of overpopulation (humans) and how much of that is because of things like oil spilling into the oceans for nearly a year straight.
@oreocookieboy81 I hope you are right. But if you are wrong, then what? By the way, the "media" is owned by corporations that are conservative. So unless you are working for them directly, what is with this "liberal" tag falsehood?
The media mafia which is made up of gay libtard commies who want to destroy our freedoms by trying to make us accept these ridiculous concepts like global warming and overpopulation----pure nonsense, any scientist who loves freedom will tell you that the earth isn't warming its cooling (Britain is covered in snow) and that its all just a bunch of hogwash to destroy our freedom
This film would have been great for Pink Floyd if they were comissioned to do it. Pink Floyd would have proably would have made a damn good prog-rock album from this movie.
I don't know about your source, or the numbers there in, but I think you might be confusing triggers & aggravating factors. Our tariffs were already to high & already operating on the margin of tolerability. The stupid politicians pushed them a little higher w/ out any concept of economics. That pushing up in an already fragile world economy provoked retaliation & shut down the world economy. Economic interventionism of BOTH Hoover & FDR aggravated & perpetuated the crisis.
I hope my writing errors don't prove too confusing. You will notice that I habitually drop the word "a" & form of "to be" such as "is." I don't know why I do this but I do. & it is not a typing error, I do it when I write free hand as well. I've always done this ever since childhood. I had only one teacher notice the phenomenon. I've always ascribed it to over hastiness, but I've come to think otherwise.
Before I go on, I'd just like to say that I appreciate an oportunity to have descent rational (& mostly descent) discussion. While we have diametrically opposed views, this discussion has been fruitful & substantive. I am so sick of people whose idea of a debate is a flame war. "Stalin was the greatest! He kicked fascist capitalist ass! Death to all imperialist!" & such like from any political perspective you can imagine. I am sure you know what I mean.
It is astonishing that people used to take this over population stuff seriously. Now we live in a world (largely created by those fools w/ their insane & misanthropic fears) that is on the brink of a kind of population collapse. Much of Europe is simply going to disappear. We have committed a kind of cultural suicide. This is why I could never Algore et al seriously. Having lived through the Zero population frenzy & the GLOBAL COOLING scare. I've seen it all before.
When the population drops back to a more sane level, people will figure "wow I've got lots of spare land to fill" and they'll go back to making babies.
@walter0bz: "DROPS BACK TO A MORE SANE LEVEL?" Do you not see the contempt for humanity in your words? Are you familiar w/ the hideous ideas of Malthus who started all this "over population" nonsense? What exactly IS this "more sane level," & what year did it occur? Has it ever occurred to you that we might go back to the economic level @ that time as well. You realise that on average, 20 people can be twice as economincally productive as 10? Same w/ 3 billion & 6 billion.
Big problem =we used Finite resource to multiply; after peak the crash.
If we could get global TFR=1.5 that would fix things, or 1 gen of 1.0 .. sooner= better.
Before industrial revolution pop was 500m? lets say our residual knowledge from oil age is 5x as efficient, that would allow 2.5 billion to survive.
I dont think we should be relying on Nuclear Power for food & water. leave that to space colonists - preserve earth - think "silent running" but backwards.
@walter0bz: While on an abstract general level, yes the total material resources in the universe are finite. For all practical human purposes it is infinite. We will continue to use all available resources in ever new & efficient ways. If people are left alone to figure things out for themselves, w/o vain glorious "social engineers" screwing things up. Like the "scientific socialist" planned economies nearly destroyed humanity in the unprecedented blood shed of the 20th century.
@walter0bz: Being so ingenious, we figure out how to bring new resources on line. We decrease pressure on old energy resources by using them more efficiently. For instance, hardly anyone uses wood for fuel anymore. Even industrial uses for wood have often bee replace by plastics, etc. Forest lands have actually expanded in the U.S. The coal industry has practically collapsed from lack of demand. Coal is mainly used in steel, which has LESS demand today.
@walter0bz: No, NOT through "outstripping resources." I would dare you to find any meaningful correspondense b/t civilizational collapse resource availability. The usual causes of such collapse are disease, real weather changes (Medieval ice age, shifting monsoons in Indus River valley of India, etc), or (mostly) politics. It was the corruption & tyranny of the Roman Empire which led to its collapse. Its inheritor regime of Byzantium was notoriously rigid & its ideological rigidity killed it.
you doubt a spacefaring, nuclear capable species that has produced macroscopically visible changes to the planet's surface in a few hundred years can change the Weather?
the whole atmosphere is created & actively balanced mostly by microbes.
>>" If people are left alone to figure things out for themselves,"
IMO wrong.
Beyond certain size, freemarket industry becomes identical to communism. Issue = concentrated power.
people can't "figure out for selves" things like nuclear power plants. Average person is dependant on forces beyond their control, with a small number in pivaleged positions.
IMO true Freedom requires survival possible with simple localized tech.
If we need oil-rig just to eat, we are oil-mans slave
@walter0bz: Reviewing older posts, I saw this one I overlooked earlier. No: Communism = freemarkets = concentrated power is NOT a valid formula. A free market economy is precisely that, free. It is directly opposite to a statest or coercive economy. Money flows through the economy like water. Like water it always seeks its own level & flows around all obstructions & erodes all resistance. While we are AFFECTED by forces we don't control, we are also a force in each of our own right.
@VictorLepanto - Monopolies start to exhibit properties of centralized economies.
in that they're run by heirachies. More effiecient, yes.
The anti-globalists rant has some truth: people "freely" became dependant on imported goods hence de-industrialization of west. dangerous to depend on people far away for survival IMO.
I do favour freemarket but IMO people *should* be very concerned about depth of wealth gap i.e. it quantifies heirarchy and how un-important an average person is..
@walter0bz: Monopolies = statist economies: Monopolies, real ones are largely driven by politics also. I doubt if any titularly private economic endeavor has ever been able to attain what you claim. The old rail roads came closest, but they were also partly political. Roads are public good & rail roads became deeply intermingled w/ the state. The state used eminent domain to destroy much private property on behalf of the rails. But cars & planes replaced the rails also.
Some arguments with americans on similar subject yielded something interesting:-
america "started free-er" because colonists had 'new land' to claim & use
wheras in europe, much land is basically monopolized by aristocracy.
what these guys say is that modern global monopolies are reaching same level of monopolizing as was the case and that freedom is now more of an illusion.
I dont have enough stats on that to know for sure.
@walter0bz: This is dubious history. The Puritan Pilgrims @ Plymouth had a kind of socialist order imposed on them by their financial backers in England. They nearly starved to death b/c of it. The Virginia colony was often driven by political refugees & indentured servants sent to be exploited as peasants on the land. George Washington's ancestor was a chaplain of the Cavaliers of King Charles. He was forced into exile in Virginia. Manufacturing was out lawed for much of U.S. pre-revolution.
At 80 container-mpg, a 20-foot container going 8,000 miles consumes 100 gallons of fuel, or just over 2 barrels worth of oil. Even if oil cost $1,000/bbl, it would therefore only cost (in fuel) just over $2,000 to ship an entire 20-foot container 8,000 miles.
This is a tiny fraction of what was being spent to ship things two centuries ago -- not to mention 2,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago.
@walter0bz "detailed calculations to show fuel is just 0.1% of food price"
No. That was *shipping* fuel. Not fuel.
You claimed *shipping* could no longer happen if Peak Oil happened. That's *shipping*. Not production. *Shipping*. Here's the link again:
peakoildebunked. blogspot. com/2005/08/55-will-peak-oil-make-long-distance. html
"MYTH: The rise in fuel prices occasioned by peak oil will make it too costly to transport food over long distances. Food production will have to be relocalized."
"So let's look at how fuel costs for long-distance shipping [...]
Clearly, demand destruction is going to occur long before crude costs make long-distance shipping too expensive. Fuel costs for long-distance shipping are a minute fraction of the retail price of food."
Shipping. Get it? Shipping. Not production. Shipping.
@walter0bz "You went on a big detailed rant claiming rising fuel prices wouldn't affect food prices. ROFL"
Please stop libeling me. Here's the post:
@walter0bz "Food Miles aren't a *luxury*, they're part of what's increased *carrying-capacity* so much"
If "food miles" means "global food trade", yes, it's not a luxury. But the reason is that it improves efficiency: both man-hour efficiency and energy efficiency.
You don't seem to know what it actually costs to ship things, do you? You seem
to simply assume it's energy-expensive. Since you're the person here who seems not to know, why don't you tell us what it actually costs to ship things?
I said trade (food miles) creates economies of scale that we rely on to feed more people. e.g. grow all the world's rice in best rice country etc.
("not a luxury")
you then post pages of half-truthed crap from a "reactionary" blog to prove fuel is only some small percentage of the rice cost, trying to prove "its not a luxury item"
yes the subject was shipping. And copying pages and pages of facts to demonstrate 103.8x oil price makes japanese rice 0.784% more doesn't change the salient issue here:- Abundant Energy = Abundant Food = Population Growth.
price micromanages. Real technology & resources set the actual limits.
Something else i'm trying to point out to you is that Price includes POWER. i.e. if the ships' captain has rare skills, he can make the fuel "cost" insignificant compared to their fees.
@walter0bz: I don't think you are getting Hitssquads point. fuel costs mainly effect shipping costs & a dubious theory of oil decline will not drive up shipping costs. In point of fact. These giant shipping vessels can be operated economically on nuclear engines; even supposing it were to come to that, which is doubtful. I have also pointed out. The shipping of finished goods will be DECLINING in years to come. We will soon mainly use this great ships only for raw materials & luxury goods.
i think you mentioned something similar r.e. detroit etc. factory workers being bred by owners..
As I see it, if you come into the world without some minimal capital behind you, you are a serf of sorts.
money quantifies heirachy i.e. billionares are like emporers/kings, tennants are like peasants. (&we all live better thanks to oil) To get closer to my utopia, you'd aim for flatter the heirachy
@walter0bz: Are you familiar w/ Kinko's? It is the model for where mass industry is going in the years to come. It is going into beautique little shops. We used to have large printing firms, they're still hanging on but barely. The computer system makes Kinko's possible. Soon, car dealers will not keep standard stock cars... well... on stock. Catologues of options will be shown to buyers & local shops will remotely manufacture the cars, or most any other consumer item, to order.
@walter0bz: I am sure that microchips could also be manufactured locally. Plenty of nerds are raised even around here. The toxic chemicals needed to manufacture such things is the real problem. I should tell you about my adventure working as a security guard in a microchip plant. But microchips are dealt w/ as commodities already. They could be shipped in assembled into finshed products locally.
>>"Catologues of options will be shown to buyers & local shops will remotely manufacture the cars"
- If just cosmetic bolt ons, I dont see that changing so much. I suspect there will still be huge power hands of whoever controls key components like engine & chassis
@walter0bz: You realize that much of what is called left & right is actually equally STATIST? The old gentry class in Europe is based on the old feudal order. The land family titles were combined as a kind of gov't. The socialist movement Europe is actually rooted in the old feudal system. Have you ever noticed that socialist politics is usually more popular depending how strong the feudal system was in an area? Think of Czarist Russia & serfdom. The U.S. has almost no support for socialism.
@VictorLepanto - feudalism/socialism observation makes sense.
some american described lincon family "being landless" but lived off own sweat using forest resources - to me that describes "collective ownership of the forest" - if you are born "landless" in uk that means you *must* appease a master for access to resources or live on state benefits. as I understand it we most certainly could not just find some unused land and farm it or whatever..there isn't any
@walter0bz: Abe's father was not landless but frontier surveying was poor. Where one land claim began or ended was questionable. Thomas Lincoln was involved in a land dispute over the extent of his land. He was, frankly, too poor to maintain the suit, so he abandoned his land claim in Kentucky & moved to Illinois. Thomas was opposed to slavery on religious & economic grounds. Slavery drove out free farm labor, like his own. I'm what you might call a Lincoln enthusiast, our greatest genius.
@VictorLepanto "Have you ever noticed that socialist politics is usually more popular depending how strong the feudal system was in an area? Think of Czarist Russia & serfdom. The U.S. has almost no support for socialism."
That was the old U.S. As Michael Moore pointed out, the U.S. is now Mexico -- by way of having imported Mexico, replacing the former population -- and therefore the communists have won in the U.S.
the leftwingers claim, restricting babies to what you can afford is example of elitism. If the world was as abundant as Hitsquad claims it wouldn't be an issue. you could just continue to multiply food production and give a minimum living to anyone who wants it.
My take is that financial crisis does point to an underlying real resource problem. Elites know that masses will ditch money if they see they're deprived of capacity that actually exists
@walter0bz: Hits is right about how intrinsically abundant the world is. All financial contractions are driven by politics. The Great Depression began w/ the Smoot-Holly Tariffs & the resultant trade wars. The gov't programs to "fix" it perpetuated it. People aren't "given" a living, the earn it if they can. Vast untapped oil reserves exist throughout the world. The U.S. is sitting on the vasted coal reserve in the world. We could use the coal conversion process Germany used in WWII.
I believe the "kondratieff wave" theory, I see it almost like a cyclical "mini-malthusian catastrophe". (i) major tech advance (ii) wave of prosperity & growth on credit expansion (application & secondary tech) (iii) maxes out & overshoots (iv) destructive war culls excess. usually roughly one lifetime (multiple generations)
an example of major tech is "the internal combustion engine"+"petrochemicals" or "the microprocessor",
secondary tech is "figuring out every delivery service" or "writing software". (this is what price signals are so good at guiding.)
IMO, we must be close to maxing out our "primary techs" and only a new advance (i dont know what, something like 3d print, nanotech,thorium reactors) can "save" the economies.
@VictorLepanto "The Great Depression began w/ the Smoot-Holly Tariffs & the resultant trade wars."
Maybe not. From A Splendid Exchange, p338:
efficientfrontier. com/ef/0adhoc/ase. htm
"One of the most notorious pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress, it is also one of the most poorly understood. Smoot-Hawley did dramatically raise U.S. tariffs, but they were already quite high. More important, and contrary to popular perception, it did not cause, or even greatly deepen, the Great
"Depression, nor was it a significant departure from previous American trade policy. Rather, Smoot-Hawley represented the high tide of worldwide protectionism that flowed on the new global agricultural trade."
p351:
"Raising the average tariff on dutiable goods to nearly 60 percent, Smoot-Hawley was no bolt from the blue; it merely propelled the already high rates of the Fordney-McCumber Act into the stratosphere.
p354:
"overall, damage had been done. How much? From an economic perspective,
"surprisingly little. In the first place, since economic growth is such a powerful driver of trade, proving an effect in the opposite direction—that protectionism makes the world poor (or that free trade makes it rich)—is problematic. Between 1929 and 1932, real GDP fell by 17 percent worldwide, and by 26 percent in the United States, but most economic historians now believe that only a minuscule part of that huge loss of both world GDP and the United States' GDP can be ascribed to the tariff
A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that this must have been true. At the time of Smoot-Hawley's passage, trade volume accounted for only about 9 percent of world economic output. Had all international trade been eliminated, and had no domestic use for the previously exported goods been found, world GDP would have fallen by the same amount—9 percent. Between 1930 and 1933, worldwide trade volume fell off by one-third to one-half. Depending on how the falloff is measured, this
"computes to 3 to 5 percent of world GDP, and these losses were partially made up by more expensive domestic goods.3 4 Thus, the damage done could not possibly have exceeded 1 or 2 percent of world GDP—nowhere near the 17 percent falloff seen during the Great Depression.
Even more impressively, the nations most dependent on trade did not suffer the most damage. For example, in Holland, trade accounted for 17 percent of GDP, and yet its economy contracted by only 8 percent in those years. By
"contrast, trade constituted less than 4 percent of the United States' GDP, yet its economy contracted by 26 percent during the Depression.35 The inescapable conclusion: contrary to public perception, Smoot-Hawley did not cause, or even significantly deepen, the Great Depression.36"
"35. Maddison, The World Economy, 363; and Monitoring the World Economy (Paris: OECD, 1995), 182-183, 196."
"36. See, for example, Giorgio Basevi, "The Restrictive Effect of the U.S. Tariff and its Welfare Value,"
"American Economic Review 58, no. 4 (September 1968): 851. Some observers believe that protectionism actually raised national income in the larger nations, particularly in the United States and England. See John Conybeare, "Trade Wars: A Comparative Study of Anglo-Hanse, Franco-Italian, and Hawley-Smoot Conflicts," World Politics," 38, no. 1 (October 1985): 169-170; and Michael Kitson and Solomos Solomu, Protectionism and Economic Revival: The British Interwar Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge
@walter0bz: Oil will not be exhausted for a long time. We have hardly begun to exploit it. Much of the oil supply is placed off limits or made economically untenable for purely political reason. & also many other highly promising energy sources are denied to us, again, for mere political nonsense reasons. Your oil or nothing theory is fallacious.
@walter0bz: Yes, even if China & India modernize. The U.S. is utterly neglecting its off shore resourced for pure politics. Our Alaska resources have barely been touched for the same reason. The Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), actually a barren patch of ice on the far North of Alaska, can match Saudi Arabia. The Russians still have there old Soviet era oil production facilities in Siberia, highly inefficient. I mentioned the Spratly Islands. I could multiply such examples.
And they thought they invented the video clip in 1980. Tops anything today I think.
jfcc9086 4 weeks ago
The like button is on the left.
jfcc9086 4 weeks ago
the conditions are being created by your government and your corporations (same thing) not simple living people who have been forced to live outside of nature for your greed. all who call themselves citizens of any government that is responsible for the destruction of this planet and its nature loving inhabitants will reap the same karma as the ones who pulled the actual trigger of destruction. you are guilty by association. you are cowards for not separating yourself from the guilty.
Creativesuns4ever 2 months ago
@Creativesuns4ever Sounds like a good idea. You go first.
jjobie 1 month ago
Soon the wealthiest 1 percent will be eating the other 99 percent. lol
DarthTroller 2 months ago
it sucks when you grow up and the dystopian sci fis you watched as a kid start coming true.
walter0bz 3 months ago
this movie,along with the other two ones based on harrison's and matheson's novels,namely the omega man and rollerball,sets up a very prophetical landscape which is more or less similar to the way we live today..
sbrechegno 4 months ago
I've always loved this movie opening, one of the best I've seen.
mullethunter711 4 months ago
When the Left is pushed real hard they'll admit that they side with the Republicans oin their denial that this could happen. Though they do like to exploit fears of this happening to grab power.
blindandwatching 4 months ago
These shots of pollution... I remember when the EPA came along. Let's give it more teeth,not less.
cochranexyz 5 months ago
MONSANTO? *siiigh*
LIFEIZTOOLTOOLIZLIFE 5 months ago
Comment removed
xshanghu 5 months ago
@xshanghu Your spelling needs work.
jjobie 1 month ago
hippie crap
gopconservative78 7 months ago
@gopconservative78 That's "Charleston Heston" hippie crap...
andmaketherain 7 months ago
@gopconservative78 reactionary crap
fyadcorp 5 months ago in playlist Intros/Outros
Will they make organic soylent green???
gomoso22 7 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the most beautiful movie openings ever made.
mrincodi 7 months ago
!!! World Wide Weed Smoking for World Peace on September 11, 2011 !!!
For the sake of Mother Gaia and the drowning polar bears!
ausseratem 7 months ago
This movie was part of the berainwashing agenda to convince sheeple that they need to kill themselves. 1. Herd the masses into cities
2. Send them into indoctrination centers( schools)
3 .Tax the life right out of the productive, and get the unproductive addicted to a meager public assistence living
4 Fluoridate everything they eat and drink, as well as their medicines
and 4o years later you got residents of IDIOCRACY
unsheepled 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love this movie
frakkia1987 10 months ago
How human viruse kill earth...
rotblade 11 months ago
WELCOME TO THE FUTURE UNDER EMPEROR BARACK HUSSEIN O-BOMB-A.
ALL HAIL THE EMPEROR BARACK HUSSEIN O-BOMB-A !!!
eddievenegas 11 months ago
the man who wrote the screenplay for this movie lived a couple houses down from my grandma in kennsington, ca, by berkeley
cozzmo99 1 year ago
Love Jesus and he will love you you doubters I hate you and want you to die you dumb fucking idiots you all shall perish in the flames you dumb fucking heathans you shall all burn for your sinful atrocities against mother earth she shall laugh as you choke on your own poisonous rot you fucks
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 And when people like you speak, it's no wonder that mankind is finally getting sick and tired of religion.
Thanks for proving, once again, that the so-called "religious" are the worst kind of lunatic.
jjobie 1 month ago
A Chuck Braverman masterpiece......
MrSunlander 1 year ago
this would be perfect movie to be remade...just like the crazies!!!
dgman69mobile 1 year ago
If there's another 70s classic ripe for a remake, this is it. That dystopia's only grown closer since it was made.
SPAnsw 1 year ago 14
@SPAnsw When you see early variants of soylent being produced, you know you're screwed.
bldude2 1 year ago
@bldude2 True. GM crops and other Frankenfoods are being used already as a way to feed the rising population. We're on the slippery slope...
SPAnsw 10 months ago
@SPAnsw
Now there is NEW MEAT from Japan as well, MADe of recycled HUMAN WASTE Another walmart special in the making
rallllphhhh
unsheepled 8 months ago
@unsheepled I read that story! It reminded me of a line from another great film- Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite."
SPAnsw 8 months ago
@SPAnsw
Remakes suck. The only good remake I've seen in a long time is the Coen Brother's version of True Grit, which in my mind improves upon the original.
Sure, they could make a good remake of Soylent Green, but my guess is they will dumb it down on focus on visual effects rather than the story.
McLarenMercedes 11 months ago
@McLarenMercedes You're probably right. Well, they should digitally restore and re-release the original then! Still so damn relevant.
SPAnsw 10 months ago
Comment removed
McLarenMercedes 10 months ago
@SPAnsw i agree
arbanaskocudo 3 months ago
This is why you roll your eyes at anyone talking about "big government" environmental regulations.
dorpth 1 year ago
The amazing part about this movie is the way it shows what our world might be like if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Eventually they end up living in two separate worlds where the poor live in a huddled mass, ignored, treated like garbage in the gutters that needing cleaning out. The rich live in lavish worlds where they enjoy things that most of the poor have never even seen. Beef! Strawberries!
This is the end result of unchecked capitalism in a shrinking world.
samisyosam 1 year ago
What is this song?
ricarleite 1 year ago
@ricarleite its just referred to as the Soylent Green them and it is composed by Fred Myrow. The version on the soundtrack is much longer, there are actually edits to it in the film version.
wrestlingwomanfan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free Energy is real and its here but the coverup is strong, if you are interested in a REAL free energy machine then
just search for the LT MAGNET MOTOR in the youtube video search , it is probably the ONLY working magnet
motor out there. Join the free energy revolution!!
buchananfibbing 1 year ago
They were talking about overpopulation in the 19th century, there is no such thing it is made up as an exuse to why 1 billion people are now living in utter poverty and on the verge of starvation
radiofreak56 1 year ago
@radiofreak56 But, if according to that Nature article the plankton are declining, we are fucked...and I am telling you I hope they are wrong, I really do hope it is pie in the mutherfucking sky, because if it is true...
doublemandala 1 year ago
@radiofreak56
The reason why they live in poverty is because they are loosers who don't love work and freedom, they want a welfare check and can't get it because their loser country is a socialist slave state which is broke and why the people are starving in the first place
overpopulation is just a myth like limited resources------resources are so abundant just look at the earth!
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 "resources are so abundant! Just look at the earth!"
You are a moron. Limited resources is a proven science! It's biology 101! That's why species compete for these limited resources to survive! Because of the industrial revolution humanity has expereinced exponential growth! But when the resources are exhausted, the population will experience logistic growth! I.e. the pupulation number will stop growing, drop, and remain remotely the same. People will suffer. It's science bitch
POTATER1228 1 year ago
@POTATER1228
That's all just lies, the scientists are liberals who are trying to control your money and your freedom. They want you to believe in their lies so you will support their nazi eugenicist abortionist programs like health care reform. You're being manipulated, its just a trick like communism that the elites sell to people to enslave them in a system of perpetual taxation and servitude Tell me all about the poor little animals and all that other whiney liberal junk!
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 it has NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS YOU MORON! It's UNBIASED science! Basic high school and college Freshman BIOLOGY! It's taught in classes that are REQUIRED to pass high school and get a damn diploma! It's not a political argument like global warming, it's a real problem! It is the BASIS OF Logistic Growth and Exponential growth! Not believing the basics of the biosphere becasue its political is like not believing gravity or the dispersion of energy! becasue its literal!
POTATER1228 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 The science og Biology is not taught be liberal media, its taught by public and private school teachers depsite political affiliation! I was taught this sceince by a Hardcore conservative Republican Sceince Professor. Who voted for McCain! But go ahead prove to me that the science of Logistic and Exponetnaial growth is wrong. It's the basis of Overpopulation and its issues. And if you actually think about it, it makes complete damn sense! Go ahead disprove the science or shut up
POTATER1228 1 year ago
@POTATER1228
Tell that to George Soros
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 George Soros is a financier and business man!! Not a scientist! Ask any professor who majored in Biology in College! Hell asked someone who ACED Biology in science. Try to dispel entire Scienctifc Theory of logistic growth and exponential growth that people haveknown for years! BEFORE the concept of OVERCONSUMPTION even existed!
POTATER1228 1 year ago
@POTATER1228
George Soros is a multi-billionaire who has convinced you people that he and Al Gore aren't running the world? Who are you to question George Soros and Ted Turner---both billionaires who own half the fucking world and who have convinced you morons that their is some sort of crisis their is no crisis only dumb people like you making mountains out of molehills from the word of George Soros and Al Gore ( a satanist) you ought to be ashamed u phoney
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 Here start with this, it is a known law that the environment has LIMITED resources. not unlimited resources. This is why there is competition. Anmials and People Compete for these limited resources to survive. This is a basic principle that IS UNIVERSAL. NO ONE disagrees with that.
POTATER1228 1 year ago 2
@oreocookieboy81
You're either insane or just a troll intentionally posting nonsense to annoy people.
"scientists are trying to control your money and freedom"?? If you honestly believe that you're a paranoid loon. A nutcase if you will.
If you are a troll you may have your very own agenda, but to most people trolls only exist to waste other people's time with their nonsense.
McLarenMercedes 11 months ago
youre 100 percent right
ADRIANAIRE 10 months ago
@oreocookieboy81 i didnt know people got welfare checks in ethiopia
radiofreak56 1 year ago
@radiofreak56
Welfare destroys individual autonomy and makes people dependant and servile to the government----then they start to eliminate you like in Nazi Germany -----this is what the liberal elites have in store for all you fools
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 lol you seriously need to relax it's a fuckin youtube video.
radiofreak56 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 I second radiofreak's comment, also I thought welfare was a socialistic thing and I also remember Hitler being super anti socialist. godwin's law has been invoked.
AGenericAccount 1 year ago
My favorite scene in this movie is where Heston eats the whole apple because he was never taught how to eat one. This is a very well done film about a future that could befall us some time in the future. Unfortunately only the people who have endured natural disasters, war , and famine believe it.
paulj0557 1 year ago
Comment removed
AkimboJoe 1 year ago
Comment removed
Billthetestnut 1 year ago
He should of said Soylent Green is made out of dead liberals!
Billthetestnut 1 year ago
@Billthetestnut
That would be a glorious day indeed!
When all the libtard scum's reckoning by the hand of Jesus will come!
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
You have to read the book, the ecologist tale called "make room ! make room !" of Harry Harrison. In 1966, the author does not dare to clearly promote his anti-natalist message in a radical way.
When I think about it, it always reminds me of this old man crying because he sees a real tomato. By the way, the actor who plays the old man was really at the end of his life when he made the film, which gives to the final scene an even more harrowing ending.
dega723 1 year ago
@dega723 The old man in the movie was screen legend Edward G. Robinson making his 101st and final film. He and Heston were old friends and Chuck wanted him to be in the picture.
HerrEllsworth 1 year ago
What has happened?
What have we done?
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?...TYPE IN THE VENUS PROJECT
SnakeFists 1 year ago
This movie would have been good for Pink Floyd. MGM could have added "Atom Heart Mother" here or songs from the More album
phoneix91 1 year ago
I'm not a picky person, just don't feel like eating a hamburger or anything that are processed food because that might have been someone's love ones, or could have been your parents, masseur, fiancée, an idiot, an old couple, your grandma or simply anything that walks with two nice pair of legs...that just doesn't sit well with me. When food is scarce, the weakest link will be a dead man walking, It's happening now...and in future!
hellcountry 1 year ago
As predicted in this movie, the science journal Nature, dated July 28, 2010 reported that the plankton in the oceans are dying, and that there has been a 40% decline in the total volume since 1950. This movie was a major warning to humanity. I hope there is still time before it becomes a reality.
doublemandala 1 year ago 33
This SCIFI movie could be one of our realistic future outlook... it's pointing in that direction. Btw. it is a shame that some companies are buying water sources in poor countries for making a future big business....Soylent Green is on my Top List of the very best SCIFI movies....and I still hope it will never come true.
Kalaschnikoffy 1 year ago
@doublemandala I'm curious how much of that is because of overpopulation (humans) and how much of that is because of things like oil spilling into the oceans for nearly a year straight.
kafkatastic 1 year ago
@doublemandala
That's nothing but a hoax perpetrated by the liberal media!
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@oreocookieboy81 I hope you are right. But if you are wrong, then what? By the way, the "media" is owned by corporations that are conservative. So unless you are working for them directly, what is with this "liberal" tag falsehood?
doublemandala 1 year ago
@doublemandala
The media mafia which is made up of gay libtard commies who want to destroy our freedoms by trying to make us accept these ridiculous concepts like global warming and overpopulation----pure nonsense, any scientist who loves freedom will tell you that the earth isn't warming its cooling (Britain is covered in snow) and that its all just a bunch of hogwash to destroy our freedom
oreocookieboy81 1 year ago
@doublemandala typical Liberal hippie crap......
gopconservative78 5 months ago
The 'newspaper' is a sad editorial.
'
Ypipable 1 year ago
The so called gross national product.
Ypipable 1 year ago
Aggressively pursuing those resources for tax revenues.
Ypipable 1 year ago
Look at us today....or in a very close future...
We are running fast against the wall !!!!
lockheedboy 1 year ago
Ain't no future like a dystopian one!
GenericOverusedName 1 year ago
This film would have been great for Pink Floyd if they were comissioned to do it. Pink Floyd would have proably would have made a damn good prog-rock album from this movie.
phoneix91 1 year ago
This was the best part in the whole movie. The opening theme.
BrokenChair88 1 year ago
@BrokenChair88 The show must go on :)
pichancho022 1 year ago
Pink Floyd should have been contracted to do the soundtrack to this film.
phoneix91 1 year ago
Comment removed
BrokenChair88 1 year ago
I don't know about your source, or the numbers there in, but I think you might be confusing triggers & aggravating factors. Our tariffs were already to high & already operating on the margin of tolerability. The stupid politicians pushed them a little higher w/ out any concept of economics. That pushing up in an already fragile world economy provoked retaliation & shut down the world economy. Economic interventionism of BOTH Hoover & FDR aggravated & perpetuated the crisis.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
I hope my writing errors don't prove too confusing. You will notice that I habitually drop the word "a" & form of "to be" such as "is." I don't know why I do this but I do. & it is not a typing error, I do it when I write free hand as well. I've always done this ever since childhood. I had only one teacher notice the phenomenon. I've always ascribed it to over hastiness, but I've come to think otherwise.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
Before I go on, I'd just like to say that I appreciate an oportunity to have descent rational (& mostly descent) discussion. While we have diametrically opposed views, this discussion has been fruitful & substantive. I am so sick of people whose idea of a debate is a flame war. "Stalin was the greatest! He kicked fascist capitalist ass! Death to all imperialist!" & such like from any political perspective you can imagine. I am sure you know what I mean.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto - yes, thanks. it is good to talk to opposing views.
walter0bz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto "I appreciate an oportunity to have descent rational (& mostly descent) discussion."
You're referring to this?:
"i'll ignore ALL your numbers after the BS links you've posted."
...Which referred to this link:
peakoildebunked. blogspot. com/2005/08/55-will-peak-oil-make-long-distance. html
hitssquad 1 year ago
It is astonishing that people used to take this over population stuff seriously. Now we live in a world (largely created by those fools w/ their insane & misanthropic fears) that is on the brink of a kind of population collapse. Much of Europe is simply going to disappear. We have committed a kind of cultural suicide. This is why I could never Algore et al seriously. Having lived through the Zero population frenzy & the GLOBAL COOLING scare. I've seen it all before.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
Comment removed
smartypantstexan 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
rubbish, you fool!
When the population drops back to a more sane level, people will figure "wow I've got lots of spare land to fill" and they'll go back to making babies.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: "DROPS BACK TO A MORE SANE LEVEL?" Do you not see the contempt for humanity in your words? Are you familiar w/ the hideous ideas of Malthus who started all this "over population" nonsense? What exactly IS this "more sane level," & what year did it occur? Has it ever occurred to you that we might go back to the economic level @ that time as well. You realise that on average, 20 people can be twice as economincally productive as 10? Same w/ 3 billion & 6 billion.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago 2
@VictorLepanto
Big problem =we used Finite resource to multiply; after peak the crash.
If we could get global TFR=1.5 that would fix things, or 1 gen of 1.0 .. sooner= better.
Before industrial revolution pop was 500m? lets say our residual knowledge from oil age is 5x as efficient, that would allow 2.5 billion to survive.
I dont think we should be relying on Nuclear Power for food & water. leave that to space colonists - preserve earth - think "silent running" but backwards.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: While on an abstract general level, yes the total material resources in the universe are finite. For all practical human purposes it is infinite. We will continue to use all available resources in ever new & efficient ways. If people are left alone to figure things out for themselves, w/o vain glorious "social engineers" screwing things up. Like the "scientific socialist" planned economies nearly destroyed humanity in the unprecedented blood shed of the 20th century.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago 3
@VictorLepanto
>>"For all practical human purposes it is infinite."
wrong. Being so ingenious we find a way to use all resource quickly without so many generations of evolution like other creatures.
- I'm no fan of planned economies.
- freemarket says "UK = FULL". Private sector can't employ all - so we've had peeps voting for socialists who grew state NonJobs to keep them happy
- C20 was least bloody per capita. It just had far more PEOPLE than any other.
WW2 hardly figures on pop chart.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Being so ingenious, we figure out how to bring new resources on line. We decrease pressure on old energy resources by using them more efficiently. For instance, hardly anyone uses wood for fuel anymore. Even industrial uses for wood have often bee replace by plastics, etc. Forest lands have actually expanded in the U.S. The coal industry has practically collapsed from lack of demand. Coal is mainly used in steel, which has LESS demand today.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto
you can look back and say "we always found a new resource"
you can also look back and say "Every civilization has reached a peak then declined" (due to outstripping resources)
>>"The coal industry has practically collapsed from lack of demand"
you'll go back to burning it for electricity.
USA has ample resources per person.. so long as you can keep the rest of the world out. "i'm alright jack"
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: No, NOT through "outstripping resources." I would dare you to find any meaningful correspondense b/t civilizational collapse resource availability. The usual causes of such collapse are disease, real weather changes (Medieval ice age, shifting monsoons in Indus River valley of India, etc), or (mostly) politics. It was the corruption & tyranny of the Roman Empire which led to its collapse. Its inheritor regime of Byzantium was notoriously rigid & its ideological rigidity killed it.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago 2
@VictorLepanto -
frontier theory i think its called. once you run out of places to conquer & introduce your systems to, the "fire" driving a civilization burns out.
nail fergusson already thinks USA is an empire in decline and thinks of C20th as power shift from west to east.
Only fusion can save us IMO, and I certainly can't see the UK getting anywhere given our dire situation.
Who will develop fusion, and how will they share it? Most likely it will be used to dominate just like any other tech
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto
"real weather changes"
you doubt a spacefaring, nuclear capable species that has produced macroscopically visible changes to the planet's surface in a few hundred years can change the Weather?
the whole atmosphere is created & actively balanced mostly by microbes.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto
>>" If people are left alone to figure things out for themselves,"
IMO wrong.
Beyond certain size, freemarket industry becomes identical to communism. Issue = concentrated power.
people can't "figure out for selves" things like nuclear power plants. Average person is dependant on forces beyond their control, with a small number in pivaleged positions.
IMO true Freedom requires survival possible with simple localized tech.
If we need oil-rig just to eat, we are oil-mans slave
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Reviewing older posts, I saw this one I overlooked earlier. No: Communism = freemarkets = concentrated power is NOT a valid formula. A free market economy is precisely that, free. It is directly opposite to a statest or coercive economy. Money flows through the economy like water. Like water it always seeks its own level & flows around all obstructions & erodes all resistance. While we are AFFECTED by forces we don't control, we are also a force in each of our own right.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago 2
@VictorLepanto - Monopolies start to exhibit properties of centralized economies.
in that they're run by heirachies. More effiecient, yes.
The anti-globalists rant has some truth: people "freely" became dependant on imported goods hence de-industrialization of west. dangerous to depend on people far away for survival IMO.
I do favour freemarket but IMO people *should* be very concerned about depth of wealth gap i.e. it quantifies heirarchy and how un-important an average person is..
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Monopolies = statist economies: Monopolies, real ones are largely driven by politics also. I doubt if any titularly private economic endeavor has ever been able to attain what you claim. The old rail roads came closest, but they were also partly political. Roads are public good & rail roads became deeply intermingled w/ the state. The state used eminent domain to destroy much private property on behalf of the rails. But cars & planes replaced the rails also.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
Some arguments with americans on similar subject yielded something interesting:-
america "started free-er" because colonists had 'new land' to claim & use
wheras in europe, much land is basically monopolized by aristocracy.
what these guys say is that modern global monopolies are reaching same level of monopolizing as was the case and that freedom is now more of an illusion.
I dont have enough stats on that to know for sure.
[more]
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: This is dubious history. The Puritan Pilgrims @ Plymouth had a kind of socialist order imposed on them by their financial backers in England. They nearly starved to death b/c of it. The Virginia colony was often driven by political refugees & indentured servants sent to be exploited as peasants on the land. George Washington's ancestor was a chaplain of the Cavaliers of King Charles. He was forced into exile in Virginia. Manufacturing was out lawed for much of U.S. pre-revolution.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
sometimes I hear people saying "leftist" when I think they might mean "statist".
both states & corporations can use credit to centralize power.
communism of course fails because it starts as populist idea, but puts all the power in hands of political heirarchy -> self serving.
A single corporation running *everything* would have same effect, and can appear through voluntary consumption
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto
>>" on average, 20 =2Xeconomical productive as 10? Same w/ 3 billion & 6 billion."
Only to a point.
Globalization requires oil -while we can shift things around we get max economies of scale.
Sure we could use nuke-boats to keep shipping going but for *essentials* ?! I say no.
I say economics = Micromanagement. The more important issue is energy per person. Oil = 13slaves each equivalent.
eg can we keep Web past oil? complex materials? getting comms satelites into orbit?!
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "Sure we could use nuke-boats to keep shipping going"
Why not use oil to power the boats?
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad
>> "Why not use oil to power the boats?"
Have you noticed that when you put a straw in a drink and suck the liquid out, eventually there is no liquid left.. its called "finite"
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "its called "finite""
What would that have to do with a proposed imminent-need to replace oil as the power for boats?
How many barrels of oil are used globally per day? 80 mmbl How many barrels of oil are typically used by a large cargo ship per day? 2,750:
instructables. com/community/Fuel-economy-of-the-worlds-longest-in-service-shi
1,000 Emma Maersks would therefore consume 2.75 mmbl/d, or only 3.4375% of the world's 80 mmbl/d oil-consumption.
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad -
yes the world has so much oil we can build a replica earth and escape there.
walter0bz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hitssquad -
yes the world has so much oil we can build a replica earth and escape there.
walter0bz 1 year ago
At 80 container-mpg, a 20-foot container going 8,000 miles consumes 100 gallons of fuel, or just over 2 barrels worth of oil. Even if oil cost $1,000/bbl, it would therefore only cost (in fuel) just over $2,000 to ship an entire 20-foot container 8,000 miles.
This is a tiny fraction of what was being spent to ship things two centuries ago -- not to mention 2,000 years ago, or 20,000 years ago.
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad -
i'll ignore ALL your numbers after the BS links you've posted.
detailed calculations to show fuel is just 0.1% of food price or some similar nonsense last time. LMAO
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "detailed calculations to show fuel is just 0.1% of food price"
No. That was *shipping* fuel. Not fuel.
You claimed *shipping* could no longer happen if Peak Oil happened. That's *shipping*. Not production. *Shipping*. Here's the link again:
peakoildebunked. blogspot. com/2005/08/55-will-peak-oil-make-long-distance. html
"MYTH: The rise in fuel prices occasioned by peak oil will make it too costly to transport food over long distances. Food production will have to be relocalized."
hitssquad 1 year ago
"So let's look at how fuel costs for long-distance shipping [...]
Clearly, demand destruction is going to occur long before crude costs make long-distance shipping too expensive. Fuel costs for long-distance shipping are a minute fraction of the retail price of food."
Shipping. Get it? Shipping. Not production. Shipping.
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad -
for 200 years economics has had a free run micromanaging growth using hydrocarbon energy.
price signals will also create efficiencies on the way down, but to assume population can still grow is very foolish.
>>"shipping"
You went on a big detailed rant claiming rising fuel prices wouldn't affect food prices. ROFL
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "You went on a big detailed rant claiming rising fuel prices wouldn't affect food prices. ROFL"
Please stop libeling me. Here's the post:
@walter0bz "Food Miles aren't a *luxury*, they're part of what's increased *carrying-capacity* so much"
If "food miles" means "global food trade", yes, it's not a luxury. But the reason is that it improves efficiency: both man-hour efficiency and energy efficiency.
You don't seem to know what it actually costs to ship things, do you? You seem
hitssquad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to simply assume it's energy-expensive. Since you're the person here who seems not to know, why don't you tell us what it actually costs to ship things?
This might help you find the answer:
google. com/search?q=site:peakoildebunked. blogspot. com+shipping+costs
"So let's look at how fuel costs for long-distance shipping will affect the price of this bag of rice as oil prices skyrocket:
If crude=$65/barrel, rice=$3.64/kg
[...]
If crude=$2600/barrel, rice=$3.775/kg"
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad -ROFL even more.
Yes that seems to confirm my point.
I said trade (food miles) creates economies of scale that we rely on to feed more people. e.g. grow all the world's rice in best rice country etc.
("not a luxury")
you then post pages of half-truthed crap from a "reactionary" blog to prove fuel is only some small percentage of the rice cost, trying to prove "its not a luxury item"
ROFL.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "I said trade (food miles) creates economies of scale"
Nope. Here's what you actually said: "while we have oil, its efficient to have such extreme specialization"
...As if large increases in the price of oil would be likely to make world-trade of food inefficient.
That was your claim -- that Peak Oil would mean the end of world food trade. Then, math and evidence were used to debunk your claim.
Then, you tried to retroactively change the subject to oil-costs of food production.
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad
>>"..As if large increases in the price of oil would be likely to make world-trade of food inefficient."
yes, it will be harder with Sailing Ships.
did we or did we not feed more people with oil based boats etc than wind powered, horse powered farming, refrigerators etc
>>"that Peak Oil would mean the end of world food trade."
not end of, but reduced.
>>math and evidence were used to debunk your claim.
no you used numbers to make logical absurdity look more impressive
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "it will be harder with Sailing Ships."
Why would you use a sailing ship, instead of an oil-powered ship?
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitsquad
peak oil wont mean end of world trade, I'm aware we had world trade using sailing ships, but it will make it harder.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "using sailing ships [...] will make [world trade] harder."
Why would you use a sailing ship, instead of an oil-powered ship?
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad -
sorry i forgot ..we have 70,000 years of oil at present useage rates dont we :)
walter0bz 1 year ago
@hitssquad -
oil drives many processes behind food that has allowed humans to multiply, this is very obvious.
if you have "detailed numbers" proving otherwise, you're analysis misses something.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz "oil drives many processes behind food"
The subject was shipping.
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad --
yes the subject was shipping. And copying pages and pages of facts to demonstrate 103.8x oil price makes japanese rice 0.784% more doesn't change the salient issue here:- Abundant Energy = Abundant Food = Population Growth.
price micromanages. Real technology & resources set the actual limits.
Something else i'm trying to point out to you is that Price includes POWER. i.e. if the ships' captain has rare skills, he can make the fuel "cost" insignificant compared to their fees.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: I don't think you are getting Hitssquads point. fuel costs mainly effect shipping costs & a dubious theory of oil decline will not drive up shipping costs. In point of fact. These giant shipping vessels can be operated economically on nuclear engines; even supposing it were to come to that, which is doubtful. I have also pointed out. The shipping of finished goods will be DECLINING in years to come. We will soon mainly use this great ships only for raw materials & luxury goods.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
feudal situation - landless peasants = debt-slaves today.
i think you mentioned something similar r.e. detroit etc. factory workers being bred by owners..
As I see it, if you come into the world without some minimal capital behind you, you are a serf of sorts.
money quantifies heirachy i.e. billionares are like emporers/kings, tennants are like peasants. (&we all live better thanks to oil) To get closer to my utopia, you'd aim for flatter the heirachy
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto
>>"hese giant shipping vessels can be operated economically on nuclear engines; "
I do believe Nuclear power can do the job of oil.
nuclear is politically controlled. (military public perception of safety)
>>"The shipping of finished goods will be DECLINING in years to come"
well, if decentralized manufacture "the new industrial revolution" is possible, thats great, it would help the world enormously.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Are you familiar w/ Kinko's? It is the model for where mass industry is going in the years to come. It is going into beautique little shops. We used to have large printing firms, they're still hanging on but barely. The computer system makes Kinko's possible. Soon, car dealers will not keep standard stock cars... well... on stock. Catologues of options will be shown to buyers & local shops will remotely manufacture the cars, or most any other consumer item, to order.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto - not familliar (will google some more)
What I am familiar with is the vague idea of decentralized manufacture e.g. 3D printing. (toy versions like reprap)
Presently we depend on a lot of ultra specialized, mass-produced items.
e.g. in digital age, not everyone can manufacture microprocessors, yet everyone needs them.
[more]
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: I am sure that microchips could also be manufactured locally. Plenty of nerds are raised even around here. The toxic chemicals needed to manufacture such things is the real problem. I should tell you about my adventure working as a security guard in a microchip plant. But microchips are dealt w/ as commodities already. They could be shipped in assembled into finshed products locally.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto
>>"Catologues of options will be shown to buyers & local shops will remotely manufacture the cars"
- If just cosmetic bolt ons, I dont see that changing so much. I suspect there will still be huge power hands of whoever controls key components like engine & chassis
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
criticism of overpop-theory from left-wingers is that it's elitist propoganda.
(-"if we share the earth, we can breed much more! but currently the rich hoard all the land & resources!"
-"oil is only used for profit, renewables are much abundant!")
Criticism from conservatives is extreme faith in price - almost the exact opposite.
;
This is very interesting.
[more]
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: You realize that much of what is called left & right is actually equally STATIST? The old gentry class in Europe is based on the old feudal order. The land family titles were combined as a kind of gov't. The socialist movement Europe is actually rooted in the old feudal system. Have you ever noticed that socialist politics is usually more popular depending how strong the feudal system was in an area? Think of Czarist Russia & serfdom. The U.S. has almost no support for socialism.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto - feudalism/socialism observation makes sense.
some american described lincon family "being landless" but lived off own sweat using forest resources - to me that describes "collective ownership of the forest" - if you are born "landless" in uk that means you *must* appease a master for access to resources or live on state benefits. as I understand it we most certainly could not just find some unused land and farm it or whatever..there isn't any
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Abe's father was not landless but frontier surveying was poor. Where one land claim began or ended was questionable. Thomas Lincoln was involved in a land dispute over the extent of his land. He was, frankly, too poor to maintain the suit, so he abandoned his land claim in Kentucky & moved to Illinois. Thomas was opposed to slavery on religious & economic grounds. Slavery drove out free farm labor, like his own. I'm what you might call a Lincoln enthusiast, our greatest genius.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VictorLepanto "Have you ever noticed that socialist politics is usually more popular depending how strong the feudal system was in an area? Think of Czarist Russia & serfdom. The U.S. has almost no support for socialism."
That was the old U.S. As Michael Moore pointed out, the U.S. is now Mexico -- by way of having imported Mexico, replacing the former population -- and therefore the communists have won in the U.S.
hitssquad 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
the leftwingers claim, restricting babies to what you can afford is example of elitism. If the world was as abundant as Hitsquad claims it wouldn't be an issue. you could just continue to multiply food production and give a minimum living to anyone who wants it.
My take is that financial crisis does point to an underlying real resource problem. Elites know that masses will ditch money if they see they're deprived of capacity that actually exists
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Hits is right about how intrinsically abundant the world is. All financial contractions are driven by politics. The Great Depression began w/ the Smoot-Holly Tariffs & the resultant trade wars. The gov't programs to "fix" it perpetuated it. People aren't "given" a living, the earn it if they can. Vast untapped oil reserves exist throughout the world. The U.S. is sitting on the vasted coal reserve in the world. We could use the coal conversion process Germany used in WWII.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
I believe the "kondratieff wave" theory, I see it almost like a cyclical "mini-malthusian catastrophe". (i) major tech advance (ii) wave of prosperity & growth on credit expansion (application & secondary tech) (iii) maxes out & overshoots (iv) destructive war culls excess. usually roughly one lifetime (multiple generations)
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto -
an example of major tech is "the internal combustion engine"+"petrochemicals" or "the microprocessor",
secondary tech is "figuring out every delivery service" or "writing software". (this is what price signals are so good at guiding.)
IMO, we must be close to maxing out our "primary techs" and only a new advance (i dont know what, something like 3d print, nanotech,thorium reactors) can "save" the economies.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@VictorLepanto "The Great Depression began w/ the Smoot-Holly Tariffs & the resultant trade wars."
Maybe not. From A Splendid Exchange, p338:
efficientfrontier. com/ef/0adhoc/ase. htm
"One of the most notorious pieces of legislation ever passed by Congress, it is also one of the most poorly understood. Smoot-Hawley did dramatically raise U.S. tariffs, but they were already quite high. More important, and contrary to popular perception, it did not cause, or even greatly deepen, the Great
hitssquad 1 year ago
"Depression, nor was it a significant departure from previous American trade policy. Rather, Smoot-Hawley represented the high tide of worldwide protectionism that flowed on the new global agricultural trade."
p351:
"Raising the average tariff on dutiable goods to nearly 60 percent, Smoot-Hawley was no bolt from the blue; it merely propelled the already high rates of the Fordney-McCumber Act into the stratosphere.
p354:
"overall, damage had been done. How much? From an economic perspective,
hitssquad 1 year ago
"surprisingly little. In the first place, since economic growth is such a powerful driver of trade, proving an effect in the opposite direction—that protectionism makes the world poor (or that free trade makes it rich)—is problematic. Between 1929 and 1932, real GDP fell by 17 percent worldwide, and by 26 percent in the United States, but most economic historians now believe that only a minuscule part of that huge loss of both world GDP and the United States' GDP can be ascribed to the tariff
hitssquad 1 year ago
"wars.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that this must have been true. At the time of Smoot-Hawley's passage, trade volume accounted for only about 9 percent of world economic output. Had all international trade been eliminated, and had no domestic use for the previously exported goods been found, world GDP would have fallen by the same amount—9 percent. Between 1930 and 1933, worldwide trade volume fell off by one-third to one-half. Depending on how the falloff is measured, this
hitssquad 1 year ago
"computes to 3 to 5 percent of world GDP, and these losses were partially made up by more expensive domestic goods.3 4 Thus, the damage done could not possibly have exceeded 1 or 2 percent of world GDP—nowhere near the 17 percent falloff seen during the Great Depression.
Even more impressively, the nations most dependent on trade did not suffer the most damage. For example, in Holland, trade accounted for 17 percent of GDP, and yet its economy contracted by only 8 percent in those years. By
hitssquad 1 year ago
"contrast, trade constituted less than 4 percent of the United States' GDP, yet its economy contracted by 26 percent during the Depression.35 The inescapable conclusion: contrary to public perception, Smoot-Hawley did not cause, or even significantly deepen, the Great Depression.36"
"35. Maddison, The World Economy, 363; and Monitoring the World Economy (Paris: OECD, 1995), 182-183, 196."
"36. See, for example, Giorgio Basevi, "The Restrictive Effect of the U.S. Tariff and its Welfare Value,"
hitssquad 1 year ago
"American Economic Review 58, no. 4 (September 1968): 851. Some observers believe that protectionism actually raised national income in the larger nations, particularly in the United States and England. See John Conybeare, "Trade Wars: A Comparative Study of Anglo-Hanse, Franco-Italian, and Hawley-Smoot Conflicts," World Politics," 38, no. 1 (October 1985): 169-170; and Michael Kitson and Solomos Solomu, Protectionism and Economic Revival: The British Interwar Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge
hitssquad 1 year ago
"University Press, 1990), 100-102."
hitssquad 1 year ago
@hitssquad - all this shows is "oil is very important" and "it will hurt a lot when its gone".
walter0bz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@walter0bz "it will hurt a lot when [oil is] gone"
The notion that Peak Oil means that oil will disappear from the market is an Peak-Oil denialist notion:
google. com/search?q=peak+oil+"does+not+mean"+"run+out"
"This does not mean that the world is running out of oil"
Why do you keep denying Peak-Oil?
hitssquad 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Oil will not be exhausted for a long time. We have hardly begun to exploit it. Much of the oil supply is placed off limits or made economically untenable for purely political reason. & also many other highly promising energy sources are denied to us, again, for mere political nonsense reasons. Your oil or nothing theory is fallacious.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago 2
@VictorLepanto
>>"Oil will not be exhausted for a long time. "
even if china/india modernize?
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz: Yes, even if China & India modernize. The U.S. is utterly neglecting its off shore resourced for pure politics. Our Alaska resources have barely been touched for the same reason. The Artic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), actually a barren patch of ice on the far North of Alaska, can match Saudi Arabia. The Russians still have there old Soviet era oil production facilities in Siberia, highly inefficient. I mentioned the Spratly Islands. I could multiply such examples.
VictorLepanto 1 year ago
on the subject of central control,
look at the effect of fear on oil prices.
Some go on about artificial scarcity, i.e. "there's much more oil, but the companies pretend its scarce so they can charge as much as they like"
;
-If True: it's an example of a monopoly &