Roger Ebert reviews "Collapse"; gives it 4 stars!

[Doomerologist]

From the review:

That fact: We have passed the peak of global oil resources. There are only so many known oil reserves. We have used up more than half of them. Remaining reserves are growing smaller, and the demand is growing larger.

Apparentyl, Ebert is a peakoiler and a doomer!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /912099993

[wisconsin_cur]

Stream it here

I watched it last night.It is mostly good stuff though, from time to time, he set my teeth on edge, more by presentation than content.

The best part was the passionate articulation that if we are to survive we need to believe that there is a way to survive and then act on that faith. The person watching next to me did not understand that part and got a little mocking, I had to set them straight, though the point may have been lost on them.

Nothing really new, but a good watch. The boy does seem "a little off" at times but that does not mean that he is wrong. I think he is 90% right. I would only take issue with his expectation (hope) that human society will evolve.

1) human socieites are not monolithic so I would have to ask which society he hopes to see evolve 2) Culture is a set of trade offs, it is hard to pick and choose. It is more a whole dish you are served rather than a buffet. In other words, it is difficult to keep what we want from the Enlightenment while retaining what we want from earlier (more) "steady state" cultures. You can culture stasis and a priority for the whole or you can culture dynamism and individualism but try to keep them compartmentalized so that individual freedom is somehow restrained by social responsibility yet still truly free?

Good luck with that.

[TWilliam]

Culture is a set of trade offs, it is hard to pick and choose. It is more a whole dish you are served rather than a buffet. In other words, it is difficult to keep what we want from the Enlightenment while retaining what we want from earlier (more) "steady state" cultures. You can culture stasis and a priority for the whole or you can culture dynamism and individualism but try to keep them compartmentalized so that individual freedom is somehow restrained by social responsibility yet still truly free?

Just so. Even if it were to be a pure anarchy (and I think I've made it clear in the past that I define 'anarchy' as 'self-governing', not 'lawless chaos'), there is still the element of self-restraint because members of such a society would respect the right of every other member to be self-determined. So no, one can never have a truly (i.e. completely unrestrained) free society. That would be chaos, not culture...

[hermes]

I just saw the movie last night. I've seen a nu[*]mber of collapse themed movies over the past 5 years and this one doesn't have much NEW content, but I certainly got to know Michael Ruppert better. I hope the movie helps him sell a couple hundred copies of his book... at least.

I enjoyed the movie and I think it's very well made. I would recommend it to a friend, though I think WAWTG did a better job with the same essential subject matter.

A few points I found very interesting were:

• His reminding that the goal should be to survive the transition period - and not to focus on surviving a sudden, acute collapse or to focus on how to survive the period AFTER the transition.
• His statement that if you're not already living in the country DON'T TRY. You're TOO LATE! Hah! Maybe he's right, it's crystal ball stuff... so I don't know. I found it amusing to hear though. Part of me gloats hearing that, feeling "right" in making the huge sacrifices that we have to move to the country years ago.

[Ludi]

[*]His statement that if you're not already living in the country DON'T TRY. You're TOO LATE!

Why, because land prices are stupidly high?

I know, he probably means "if you're not already self-sufficient in the country - DON'T TRY YOU'RE TOO LATE."

Most people living in the country are not self-sufficient and buy their food at the grocery store. I know I do!

<<<< the walking dead

[hermes]

I know, he probably means "if you're not already self-sufficient in the country - DON'T TRY YOU'RE TOO LATE."

Yes, that's my recollection of what he essentially had to say: Don't try to move to the country at this point - if you haven't already started then you're too late. However it could be seen as contradicting what he advises in another part of the movie. That is: he says the idea is to prepare not for a sudden crash but an incremental crash. That said it seems to me that a person could very well move to the country and incrementally ramp up their production rather than have to count on immediately producing all their needs.

Most people living in the country are not self-sufficient and buy their food at the grocery store. I know I do!
<<<< the walking dead

Absolutely true. To my thinking being in the country means you have the potential to be producing your own food - not that you're actually doing it... everyone's in store for a horrific wakeup call - rural and otherwise.

[General Doom]

To my thinking being in the country means you have the potential to be producing your own food - not that you're actually doing it... everyone's in store for a horrific wakeup call - rural and otherwise.

In the absence of JIT distribution, to my mind being in the country means more food per capita per unit area, generally speaking of course. Whether producing, foraging, hunting, or all of the above. I guess some would throw "reaping" into the mix, too. In any case, it's a function of both population density and the local ecological conditions.

[Goghgoner]

I watched the movie last night -- got it in the mail from Netflix. I was willing to turn it off after the first 15 minutes because his views of the future and knowledge seem to match mine closely. I stared at my wife for signs of boredom and found none so I watched most of it.

I thought Ruppert was very clear in the message.

Two points in the movie made me think:

1) Ruppert points to the second oil price spike as the time when modern civilization stops functioning.

I have been pondering the time-line of collapse and this is the first idea that resonates with me. The last spike almost brought about collapse so I can imagine how the next spike will stick a fork in it. My guess is that this spike starts in 2012 and could top out in 2015. My second thought is $80 oil is too expensive and will slowly erode the economy so there won't be another spike.

2) The 100th monkey story was cool and new to me. It kind-of motivates me to lead more by example instead of throwing in the towel and driving a hummer (so to speak). However, the story may be a myth.

Unsubstantiated claims that there was a sudden and remarkable increase in the proportion of washers in the first population were exaggerations of a much slower, more mundane effect. Rather than all monkeys mysteriously learning the skill it was noted that it was predominantly younger monkeys that learned the skill from the older monkeys through the usual means of imitation; older monkeys who did not know how to wash tended not to learn. As the older monkeys died and younger monkeys were born the proportion of washers naturally increased. The time span between observations was in the order of years.

Wikipedia

[hermes]

Rather than all monkeys mysteriously learning the skill it was noted that it was predominantly younger monkeys that learned the skill from the older monkeys through the usual means of imitation; older monkeys who did not know how to wash tended not to learn. As the older monkeys died and younger monkeys were born the proportion of washers naturally increased. The time span between observations was in the order of years.

This reminds me of an article I read years ago about neglected deaf children developing their own language - and how it was fascinating to notice the way that the language evolved: the evolution happened in the youngest generation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3662928.stm

That article doesn't exactly touch upon what I'm talking about - and what the Wikipedia entry suggests, but I think it's a fascinating read. Generally speaking the idea is "you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Innovation happens in the youngest generation and then firms up as they get older, the information is passed down to the next generation growing up who then continues to innovate upon the ideas they're given. But the older generation tends to NOT be the driving force of innovation, and furthermore tends to not take on the innovations brought about by the youth.

Bringing this back to what Ruppert is talking about I would expect to see the vast majority of cultural innovation happen with the youngest generation rather than the older - and probably only with people under 24 yrs old or so (a guess based on the brain's development - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_age_does ... developing).

This helps to give a sense of the pace of cultural change (not very fast), and also the people who will drive that change (the youth).

[Newfie]

I watched the movie last night -- got it in the mail from Netflix. I was willing to turn it off after the first 15 minutes because his views of the future and knowledge seem to match mine closely. I stared at my wife for signs of boredom and found none so I watched most of it.

I thought Ruppert was very clear in the message.

Ditto that. We just watched it. I started watching it here at the computer. She walked by and got engaged, pulled up a chair and sat through the whole thing.

Wife mostly gets intellectually it but still has a hard time accepting it emotionally.

Hearing it from someone besides me is helpful.

I wish him well.

What is his current status? Anyone know?

[Goghgoner]

I know he was selling subscriptions on his website for $10/month. I imagine that includes an electronic newsletter.

Looks like he has moved his website a few times in the past decade, here is the latest link:

http://www.collapsenet.com/

Yeah, spouses get ignored after the first umpteen collapse talks

[Newfie]

"Life Boat Docks"

That proves it, great minds DO think alike.