3 ms·

Let’s say that’s true. Now what? We obviously can’t stop energy production, so what’s the best source? It seems obvious to me that the most resilient form of en

Let’s say that’s true. Now what? We obviously can’t stop energy production, so what’s the best source? It seems obvious to me that the most resilient form of energy production is billions (trillions?) of dirt cheap solar panels across the globe. Sure you can take some out, but it’s hard to take out enough to matter, and your bombs are way more expensive than the panels they’re taking out. What’s more resilient than solar?

asdff 7mo ago
Nothing is in the western context. Resilient is developing Africa where people already know how to live without regular electricity. Or the US in 1926. Kind of interesting how electrifying the countryside has lead to such an unintended and ever present Achilles tendon for western nations. In the future we might go to war to protect AC units in Phoenix.
- senordevnyc 7mo ago
  This could be applied to any modern infrastructure, or even agriculture itself. So your position is that all of modernity is inherently not resilient? I don't really agree, but more to the point, it seems pointless in the extreme to even bother discussing it. Maybe the only way to be "resilient" as a species is to return to hunter gatherer societies, but basically no one wants that. Including all those people in "developing Africa".
  - asdff 7mo ago
    I do think that. Consider that there was a time when a higher percentage of the population had the skillset they needed to go off, make all the tools they needed to live off the land and survive the year. People turned to that in this country in the great depression, at least in part in certain skills. But it allowed for survival and a partial set of modern amenities. Living without gasoline or power thanks to knowing how to split wood and cook over a fire. Being able to eat meat tonight thanks to being able to identify a game trail, snare a squirrel, process, and cook it, without a dime spent. Replace developing africa with developing anywhere that has a large amount of people on the poverty line relying at least in part on honed skills to cover what they can't afford of modern life. In the united states this lifestyle by and large doesn't exist at least among the impovershed, although it is hobby for the rich who can afford the gear. It isn't like homeless people in say Sacramento know how to fletch arrows or track grouse. They are wholly dependent on modern life through the welfare state and the social services they receive, or what waste streams perhaps they might on occasion subsist on from modern life. In either case, I've never seen a starving homeless person in the United States in whatever state they might be in, and I've never seen one having to fletch arrows either. That skillset is lost, as it isn't necessary any more. And when the bombs fly and all those modern supply chains fall apart, guess what population of humanity is most primed to shrug it off and apply learned skills to the problem. It sure isn't people in Sacramento.

asdff 7mo ago

Nothing is in the western context. Resilient is developing Africa where people already know how to live without regular electricity. Or the US in 1926. Kind of interesting how electrifying the countryside has lead to such an unintended and ever present Achilles tendon for western nations. In the future we might go to war to protect AC units in Phoenix.

senordevnyc 7mo ago
This could be applied to any modern infrastructure, or even agriculture itself. So your position is that all of modernity is inherently not resilient? I don't really agree, but more to the point, it seems pointless in the extreme to even bother discussing it. Maybe the only way to be "resilient" as a species is to return to hunter gatherer societies, but basically no one wants that. Including all those people in "developing Africa".
- asdff 7mo ago
  I do think that. Consider that there was a time when a higher percentage of the population had the skillset they needed to go off, make all the tools they needed to live off the land and survive the year. People turned to that in this country in the great depression, at least in part in certain skills. But it allowed for survival and a partial set of modern amenities. Living without gasoline or power thanks to knowing how to split wood and cook over a fire. Being able to eat meat tonight thanks to being able to identify a game trail, snare a squirrel, process, and cook it, without a dime spent. Replace developing africa with developing anywhere that has a large amount of people on the poverty line relying at least in part on honed skills to cover what they can't afford of modern life. In the united states this lifestyle by and large doesn't exist at least among the impovershed, although it is hobby for the rich who can afford the gear. It isn't like homeless people in say Sacramento know how to fletch arrows or track grouse. They are wholly dependent on modern life through the welfare state and the social services they receive, or what waste streams perhaps they might on occasion subsist on from modern life. In either case, I've never seen a starving homeless person in the United States in whatever state they might be in, and I've never seen one having to fletch arrows either. That skillset is lost, as it isn't necessary any more. And when the bombs fly and all those modern supply chains fall apart, guess what population of humanity is most primed to shrug it off and apply learned skills to the problem. It sure isn't people in Sacramento.