Monday, 9 April 2018

Matt Savinar's dystopian vision of a post-oil age

"The Oil Age is Over" – Matt Savinar's 2004 vision of a post-Peak world

In 2004, 14 years ago Matt Savinar wrote a book the Oil Age is Over.

Note, this was written a full 4 years before the 2008 economic meltdown which changed so much.

He has since withdrawn from the scene and become an astrologer.

While many predictions have not come to pass in quite the way that was expected back then - for instance that climate change would dominate the process and the powers-that be would decide to cook the planet to save the economy - this book is remarkably prescient.

Savinar has an "optimistic" vision of what might eventuate with energy descent as well as a "pessimistic" view.

The pessimistic view looks strangely like the world we are living in where not one of the numerous predicaments we are living with have been even acknowledged, still less addressed.

A Optimistic

 1–5 years post peak:  major recession comparable to those experienced during the artificially created oil shortages of the 1970s.

5–15 years post – peak;  recession worsens into a second great depression

15–25 years post – peak: society begins to collapse. Conditions in the US begin to resemble those the modern-day former USSR

25–50 years post – peak: societal collapse worsens.  Conditions within the US begin to resemble those in modern-day Iraq: extremely high unemployment, high crime, banditry,  collapsed electrical grid, food and water shortages. Many localities resemble modern day third world countries such as Liberia or Bosnia.

 50 to 100 years post peak :  Society begins to stabilise – albeit in a form drastically different than anything most of us have imagined

 B. Pessimistic

10–25 years post – peak: As oil becomes scarcer, people resort to burning coal to power primitive forms of industry – which greatly accelerates global climate change. Crops fail, mass-starvation sets in. Worldwide wars break out as nations scramble for what little cheap oil is left.  At some point, a nuclear power such as the US or Russia decides it has nothing to lose by attempting to win an all about global nuclear war.

pp. 24-25)

Matt Savinar says the government has two strategies to solve this problem:

a) steal what's left;

b) forced depopulation of oil-rich areas


Would our leaders actually deploy these horrific weapons? How could they rationalise something so horrible?

Simple, in less than 20 years, the self-regulating market system will have "run out of gas" and vanished. With the market system gone, the ruling elite will fall back on the good old-fashioned means of control, a police state. In the US alone, 200 million guns in private ownership guarantee that this police state will quickly devolve into rebellion and anarchy.

If the anarchy scenario were to reach its natural conclusion, the global elite would be eliminated by the angry masses. Those who manage to escape would die more miserably than the poor since they are unsuited for day-to-day survival because they have lived their lives like queen bees

Once this scenario becomes inevitable, the elites will simply depopulate most of the planet with a bio weapon. It will be the only logical solution to their problem. It’s a first-strike tactic that leaves the infrastructure and other species in place and allows the elites to perpetrate their own genes into the foreseeable future: «War is a male reproductive strategy. All that is needed for the strategy to evolve is that aggressors fight and win more often than they lose."

The global genocide will be rationalised as a second chance for humanity – a new Garden of Eden – a new Genesis. The temptation will prove irresistible

"Strangelove said, " Offhand, I should say that in addition to the factors of youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills, it would be absolutely fine apple that our top government and military men be included, to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.'

"The arrow had not missed its mark, and around the table there was an outbreak of sober, nodding heads. Attention was concentrated more than ever on Doctor Strangelove.

"Strangelove went on. 'Naturally they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time and little to do. With the proper breeding techniques, and starting with a ratio of, say 10 women to each man, I would estimate the progeny of the original group of 200,000 would emerge a hundred years later as well over 100 million…»

Look at the situation from their perspective. What other solution is there? Keep in mind that the people making the decisions about these things are all former energy and defence industry executives. What you and I call a “holocaust” they would call a “downsizing”.

Are we really crazy enough to fight an all out nuclear war for oil?

Remember that in the 21st-century, oil production = food production. So the question should be: “How many people, in which nuclear arms nation, are going to starve before they feel that they have nothing to lose by initiating nuclear war?”...
(pp. 97-98)

In this regard it is useful to go back to this film made at about the same time.

What A Way To Go: Life at the end of Empire

No comments:

Post a Comment