Friends and Family

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
SteveR's picture
SteveR
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 4 2008
Posts: 71
Friends and Family

I am guessing that I am not the only one in this group who is frustrated in trying to help friends and family.

It's amazing to me the level of denial and blind faith that I am encountering, even when indisputable facts are presented.  Some want to avoid the topic altogether.  It's like there's a hurricane coming but I can't get anyone to believe the radar screen.

I have led the horses to the water and they are not drinking. Age-old wisdom says that that's all I can do and that I should stop wasting my effort.  But these are the people I care about - drink the water dammit!

Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions on how to help our mainstream friends and family?  And don't say, "Have them watch the Crash Course," because I have already presented them with similar material, in an easy-to-read written format, with little success.

SteveR

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 856
Re: Friends and Family

Steve,

As you are aware, you cannot force them to drink.  As time passes some will become interested, others will remain in denial.  Just keep educating and preparing yourself.

Some thoughts on this thread may help.

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/coping-triple-e-interpersonal-problems/12564

NLP's picture
NLP
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 5 2008
Posts: 51
Re: Friends and Family

SteveR,

You are not alone.  I'll say it again, you are not alone.  First and foremost find comfort in that your shared experience is the same as mine and every other contributor to this site.  We all keep trying to spread the word, some more or less successful than others.

The overwhelming answer to your question is: folks will truly listen when they are ready.  With patience, perserverance, and a little humor, you can keep your mind alert and keen, keep your spirits up by plugging in to this site regularly and you will find your inner circle wake up to this information.

Remember, accepting the news is HARD... the siren's song has been so seductive for far too long.  Hang in there.  Stay rooted in TRUTH, the universe will send you more like-minded folks. 

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 963
Re: Friends and Family

There are several threads here dealing with this; you could check out Triple E Relationship Issues, etc.

Same situation here; I inspired that thread, LOL.

 

SG

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Friends and Family

Hi Steve,

I think that each and every person on this site has in some way or another met similar issues with friends and family. However, the depth of the problem of explaining how important this information is differs by turn. I recently wrote to someone on another thread and am pasting what I wrote below. This might wake them out of there dillusion but, at the very least may explain the condition they have to you.

My best intentions are that you spend time writing on this thread and I'll be more than happy to help carry the burden.

Take Care,

Paul

...........

Page 26 of James Howard Kunstler' and a book you should read (if you haven't?) called, 'The Long Emergency'. This is the passage I had in mind :-

" ... How could such a catastrophe be so close at hand and civilized, educated people in free countries with free media and transparent institutions be so uninformed about it? I am not one for conspiracies. While they have happened in history, conspiracies almost invariably have to be very small, and limited to tiny circles of individuals. Human beings are not very good at keeping secrets; individual self-interest is not interchangeable with group interest and the two are often in conflict, most particularly among small groups of plotters. I do not believe that the general ignorance about the coming catastrophic end of the cheap-oil era is the product of a conspiracy, either on the part of business or government or news media. Mostly, it is a matter of cultural inertia, aggravated by collective delusion, nursed in the growth medium of comfort and complacency. Author Erik Davis has referred to this as the "consensus trance".

When we think about it all, most Americans seem to believe that oil is superabundant, if not limitless. We believe that the world is full of enormous amounts of as-yet-undiscovered oil fields, and that "new technologies" for drilling and extraction will perform prodigious miracles in extending the life of existing fields. For many of us, even people who ought to know better, the thinking stops here. The oil corporations know better but they also know that bad news is bad for business, and because there are no ready substitutes for oil they decided to soft-peddle the news about world peak. Either that or they put a smiley-face spin on the situation. British Petroleum (BP) recast itself "Beyond Petroleum" in order to gain points for social responsibility without really changing anything it does.

Collin Cambell, an oil geologist who has worked for many of the leading international oil companies, including BP, put it this way:

The one word they don't like to talk about is depletion. That smells in the investment community, who are always looking for good news and the image, and it's not easy for them to explain all these rather complicated things, nor indeed do they have any motive or responsibility to do so. It's not their job to look after the future of the world. Their directors are in the business to make money, for themselves primarily and for the shareholders when they can. So I think it's certainly true the oil companies shy away from the subject, they don't like to talk about it, and they are very obtuse about what they do or say about it. They themselves understand the situation as clearly as I do, and their actions speak a lot more than their words. If they had great faith in growing production for years to come, why did they not invest in refineries? There are very few new refineries being built. Why do they merge? They merge because there's not room for them all. It's a contracting business. Why do they shed staff, why do they outsource people? BP aims to have 30 percent of its staff on contract. This is because it doesn't want long-term obligations to them. The North Sea is declining rapidly. They don't like to say so, but I think only four wildcats were drilled there this year(2002). It's over! It's finished! And how can BP or Shell and the great European companies stand up and say, well, sorry, the North Sea is over? It's a kind of shock they don't wish to make. It's not evil, or there's no conspiracy, or anything. We live in a world of imagery and public relations and they do it fairly well, I'd say. " 

........................

This is in itself a useful tool in explaining to your friends and family exactly why they are finding the facts so difficult to digest.

Another piece of catastrophic news that went by quietly in the Guardian Newspaper back on the 15th December 2008 was this interview by George Monbiot with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA). I'd watch the video after reading the article here by clicking the link below :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/15/oil-peak-energy-iea

"  Can you think of a major threat for which the British government does not prepare? It employs an army of civil servants, spooks and consultants to assess the chances of terrorist attacks, financial collapse, floods, epidemics, even asteroid strikes, and to work out what it should do if they happen. But there is one hazard about which it appears intensely relaxed: it has never conducted its own assessment of the state of global oil supplies and the possibility that one day they might peak and then go into decline.

If you ask, the government always produces the same response: "Global oil resources are adequate for the foreseeable future." It knows this, it says, because of the assessments made by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its World Energy Outlook reports. In the 2007 report, the IEA does appear to support the government's view. "World oil resources," it states, "are judged to be sufficient to meet the projected growth in demand to 2030," though it says nothing about what happens at that point, or whether they will continue to be sufficient after 2030. But this, as far as Whitehall is concerned, is the end of the matter. Like most of the rich world's governments, the UK treats the IEA's projections as gospel. Earlier this year, I submitted a freedom of information request to the UK's department for business, asking what contingency plans the government has made for global supplies of oil peaking by 2020. The answer was as follows: "The government does not feel the need to hold contingency plans specifically for the eventuality of crude-oil supplies peaking between now and 2020."

So the IEA had better be right. In the report on peak oil commissioned by the US department of energy, the oil analyst Robert L Hirsch concluded that "without timely mitigation, the economic, social and political costs" of world oil supplies peaking "will be unprecedented". He went on to explain what "timely mitigation" meant. Even a worldwide emergency response "10 years before world oil peaking", he wrote, would leave "a liquid-fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked". To avoid global economic collapse, we need to begin "a mitigation crash programme 20 years before peaking". If Hirsch is right, and if oil supplies peak before 2028, we're in deep doodah.

So burn this into your mind: between 2007 and 2008 the IEA radically changed its assessment. Until this year's report, the agency mocked people who said that oil supplies might peak. In the foreword to a book it published in 2005, its executive director, Claude Mandil, dismissed those who warned of this event as "doomsayers". "The IEA has long maintained that none of this is a cause for concern," he wrote. "Hydrocarbon resources around the world are abundant and will easily fuel the world through its transition to a sustainable energy future." In its 2007 World Energy Outlook, the IEA predicted a rate of decline in output from the world's existing oilfields of 3.7% a year. This, it said, presented a short-term challenge, with the possibility of a temporary supply crunch in 2015, but with sufficient investment any shortfall could be covered. But the new report, published last month, carried a very different message: a projected rate of decline of 6.7%, which means a much greater gap to fill.

More importantly, in the 2008 report the IEA suggests for the first time that world petroleum supplies might hit the buffers. "Although global oil production in total is not expected to peak before 2030, production of conventional oil ... is projected to level off towards the end of the projection period." These bland words reveal a major shift. Never before has one of the IEA's energy outlooks forecast the peaking or plateauing of the world's conventional oil production (which is what we mean when we talk about peak oil).

But that is as specific as the report gets. Does it or doesn't it mean that we have time to prepare? What does "towards the end of the projection period" mean? The agency has never produced a more precise forecast - until now. For the first time, in the interview I conducted with its chief economist Fatih Birol recently, it has given us a date. And it should scare the pants off anyone who understands the implications.

Birol, the lead author of the new energy outlook, is a small, shrewd, unflustered man with thick grey hair and Alistair Darling eyebrows. He explained to me that the agency's new projections were based on a major study it had undertaken into decline rates in the world's 800 largest oilfields. So what were its previous figures based on? "It was mainly an assumption, a global assumption about the world's oil fields. This year, we looked at it country by country, field by field and we looked at it also onshore and offshore. It was very, very detailed. Last year it was an assumption, and this year it's a finding of our study." I told him that it seemed extraordinary to me that the IEA hadn't done this work before, but had based its assessment on educated guesswork. "In fact nobody had done this research," he told me. "This is the first publicly available data."

So was it not irresponsible to publish a decline rate of 3.7% in 2007, when there was no proper research supporting it? "No, our previous decline assumptions have always mentioned that these are assumptions to the best of our knowledge - and we also said that the declines [could be] higher than what we have assumed."

Then I asked him a question for which I didn't expect a straight answer: could he give me a precise date by which he expects conventional oil supplies to stop growing?

"In terms of non-Opec [countries outside the big oil producers' cartel]," he replied, "we are expecting that in three, four years' time the production of conventional oil will come to a plateau, and start to decline. In terms of the global picture, assuming that Opec will invest in a timely manner, global conventional oil can still continue, but we still expect that it will come around 2020 to a plateau as well, which is, of course, not good news from a global-oil-supply point of view."

Around 2020. That casts the issue in quite a different light. Birol's date, if correct, gives us about 11 years to prepare. If the Hirsch report is right, we have already missed the boat. Birol says we need a "global energy revolution" to avoid an oil crunch, including (disastrously for the environment) a massive global drive to exploit unconventional oils, such as the Canadian tar sands. But nothing on this scale has yet happened, and Hirsch suggests that even if it began today, the necessary investments and infrastructure changes could not be made in time. Birol told me: "I think time is not on our side here."

When I pressed him on the shift in the agency's position, he argued that the IEA has been saying something like this all along. "We said in the past that one day we will run out of oil. We never said that we will have hundreds of years of oil ... but what we have said is that this year, compared with past years, we have seen that the decline rates are significantly higher than what we have seen before. But our line that we are on an unsustainable energy path has not changed."

This, of course, is face-saving nonsense. There is a vast difference between a decline rate of 3.7% and 6.7%. There is an even bigger difference between suggesting that the world is following an unsustainable energy path - a statement almost everyone can subscribe to - and revealing that conventional oil supplies are likely to plateau around 2020. If this is what the IEA meant in the past, it wasn't expressing itself very clearly.

So what do we do? We could take to the hills, or we could hope and pray that Hirsch is wrong about the 20-year lead time, and begin a global crash programme today of fuel efficiency and electrification. In either case, the British government had better start drawing up some contingency plans. "

..................

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Friends and Family

why don't we all agree to move to a good place and build our own community?  friends and family will come later once everything crashes.  Cool

there was a libertarian movement trying that in new hampshire...their goal being to elect patriots in state govt.

montana would be good too.  bozeman anyone?  Laughing 

SteveR's picture
SteveR
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 4 2008
Posts: 71
Re: Friends and Family
strabes wrote:

why don't we all agree to move to a good place and build our own community?

Galt's Gulch, anyone?

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2252
Re: Friends and Family

Hey SteveR:

 There was a long and thorough thread about this a few weeks ago in the Chapter 20 forum called "How Would You Hande It" (yes, that should be "handle" but the thread's title is spelled "hande")...

 

Below is not a link but that's the heading/subheading you'll find the thread in...   Happy reading, Sager 

 Home » Forums » The Crash Course » Chapter 20: What Should I Do? 

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Friends and Family
strabes wrote:

why don't we all agree to move to a good place and build our own community?  friends and family will come later once everything crashes.  Cool

there was a libertarian movement trying that in new hampshire...their goal being to elect patriots in state govt.

montana would be good too.  bozeman anyone?  Laughing 

I've been to Bozeman - very bleak place and very, very cold in the winter!  And this is from someone who spent 10 years in Fargo, North Dakota!

If I had to pick, I'd go with New Hampshire. (Better yet - how about one of the islands of Hawaii?)

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Friends and Family

how long ago were you there?  it became the top rockies boomtown after boulder got too dense.  college town, totally new demographic, totally new downtown, 6 mountain ranges, 3 best fly-fishing rivers in the country, small town culture, lots of ag (potatoes, wheat), lots of hunting, lots of big game, hearty population that knows how to use guns, very community-oriented cops so they won't be doing the martial law thing, best mountain biking, yellowstone NP, glacier NP, teton NP, big sky, big community coop...

yeah it gets cold.  but it's a dry cold...feels WAY warmer than chicago! 

anyway, I'm not from there, no offense taken.  :) 

SamLinder's picture
SamLinder
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 10 2008
Posts: 1499
Re: Friends and Family
strabes wrote:

how long ago were you there?  it became the top rockies boomtown after boulder got too dense.  college town, totally new demographic, totally new downtown, 6 mountain ranges, 3 best fly-fishing rivers in the country, small town culture, lots of ag (potatoes, wheat), lots of hunting, lots of big game, hearty population that knows how to use guns, very community-oriented cops so they won't be doing the martial law thing, best mountain biking, yellowstone NP, glacier NP, teton NP, big sky, big community coop...

yeah it gets cold.  but it's a dry cold...feels WAY warmer than chicago! 

anyway, I'm not from there, no offense taken.  :) 

Funny how we think things we've left behind are frozen in time. I guess it's got to be 20 years at least. To paraphrase Chris M., the next 20 years were apparently quite unlike the previous 20 years!  Wink

caroline_culbert's picture
caroline_culbert
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 2 2008
Posts: 624
Re: Friends and Family
SteveR wrote:

It's amazing to me the level of denial and blind faith that I am encountering, even when indisputable facts are presented. 

SteveR

Welcome to my world (regarding other matters).  I know exactly how you feel.  Give them to strangers.  That's what I did after making hundreds of copies of theZietgeistmovie.  You may not be able to help your family but that doesn' mean you need to give up helping those more receptive to the matter.  Good luck.

jessme's picture
jessme
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 13
Re: Friends and Family

My family is finally beginning to think about the possibility of coming around. What the hey, it's progress. Now if I could only convince my mom that having a stock of food is practical and not something that people do when they think the world is coming to an end, there will be real progress made.

I live in rural oklahoma, and would welcome like minded people to form a community. Racists and religious nutjobs need not apply.

cejstrup's picture
cejstrup
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 10 2008
Posts: 20
Re: Friends and Family

I know how you feel Steve. I'm in the exact same position. From time to time I do give out small hints as to what I think is going to happen in order to try and get a feel for how people react. It's mostly ignored or they see me as a pessimist.

But I agree it's very frustrating when it's people you love and care about. I honestly don't know what to do.Chances are most people aren't going to accept things before they actually happen Frown

sunson's picture
sunson
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 29 2009
Posts: 42
Re: Friends and Family
SteveR wrote:

I am guessing that I am not the only one in this group who is frustrated in trying to help friends and family.

It's amazing to me the level of denial and blind faith that I am encountering, even when indisputable facts are presented.  Some want to avoid the topic altogether.  It's like there's a hurricane coming but I can't get anyone to believe the radar screen.

:)

I highly recommend the video "What a way to go: Life at the end of the Empire".One of the interviewed says "Humans are designed to get an adrenaline rush for immediate things... like a lion coming in from behind the bush. If you tell them oil is peaking, nothing just happens."

Like everybody else is saying here... just keep educating. They might contact you. It just happened with one of my friends as he lost his job, he awakened.

 

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Friends and Family

Hi Sunson,

I made up a thread to this film a while ago but, I think I gave too much of a distraction with 'George Bailey' for anyone to leave a commentEmbarassed.

There's also a link to the Official Website to the film...

Click on the link and you'll get my meaning :-

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/what-nightmare/13623

Paul

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments