Author Topic: Kurt Vonnegut: "Cold Turkey" (Read 2246 times)

Boroda · « **on:** May 21, 2004, 04:21:04 AM »

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/

I have read this article in Russian translation yesterday, it was translated from Mexican "La Jornada" newspaper: http://www.inosmi.ru/stories/01/06/28/3008/209720.html

Some media here said that it was published in Mexico because no American newspaper dares to publish it... But now I found out it was published by "In these times" (http://www.inthesetimes.com).

Can anyone tell me what is "In these times"? Is it a popular magazine, reliable one, or is it just another unknown tabloid?

Vonnegut is one of my favourite authors, and a person who's opinion I will always respect (but not nessesary agree with).

How could it be possible (if it is true) that no major American media accepted his little essay?...

Edit: inserted an original link to an article on "In these times" site.

Nilsen · « **Reply #1 on:** May 21, 2004, 05:05:18 AM »

If the story is about having to live without oil sooner than any of us expected then it is true. It has been on the news and in the media here too. Some predict its just a matter of 10-15 years before the number of produced barrels pr day will not cover demand. Atm there is just some 2million barrels "surplus" production.

America is by far the biggest user and will most likey suffer most when you see the outrage over just minor price jumps. (SUV's are great

). China's demand is gonna grow drasticly in the years to come so we better start getting prepared cause it will happen within our lifetime wether we ignore it or not.

lazs2 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 21, 2004, 08:56:21 AM »

All the American newspapers are in Bush's pocket and strive mightily to keep out any news that may make him look bad.

They are also very aware that sensationalism simply frightens people and would never publish a half baked quasi scientific article if it would boost circulation but frighten people.

lazs

J_A_B · « **Reply #3 on:** May 21, 2004, 09:03:23 AM »

That reminds me of my gradeschool textbooks that explained how the world would run completely out of fossil fuels before the year 2000.

Vonnegut has always been something of a pessimist. He isn't published on a wider scale because he says essentially the same thing now as he said 30 years ago.

J_A_B

Toad · « **Reply #4 on:** May 21, 2004, 09:05:37 AM »

TurkeyDiesel!

Nilsen · « **Reply #5 on:** May 21, 2004, 09:14:06 AM »

You may choose to look away and ignore it untill it hits you in the face, but demand is rising and reserves are getting smaller. It isnt too long ago that Shell had to reevaluate their figures because they had far less than they thought. The middle-east are producing close to max and its not a very stable supplier....and it is becomming less stable, and not more. From the program i saw a few days ago the most optimistic of the serious geologists say 25 years and the most pesimistic say 10 years. The thing they do agree on is that prices will go up drasticly within the next 3-5 years.

lazs2 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 21, 2004, 09:48:04 AM »

I am still waiting for the ice age that will happen sometime in the 1990's.

lazs

Charon · « **Reply #7 on:** May 21, 2004, 09:48:27 AM »

Historically, you've always been able to find new reserves. I recall an article in the 1911 edition of the magazine I write for (and one written by a leading scientist of the day) where we were going to be out of oil by the 1940s. And this was at a time when gasoline was primarily used as a cleaning agent and coal was king.

The current mainstream (and debated) panic figure is about 45 years or so. If it was 10 to 15 years, then the oil industry and auto industry would already be in the transition stage to fuel cells etc. and be worlking to grab the largest piece of the "new" energy marketplace. They will reisit the technology as long as the current system is more profitable and efficient, but the second that changes (and 15 years is cleary well into the change envelope) they will be positioned to ride the wave.

Charon

Krusher · « **Reply #8 on:** May 21, 2004, 10:14:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
You may choose to look away and ignore it untill it hits you in the face, but demand is rising and reserves are getting smaller. It isnt too long ago that Shell had to reevaluate their figures because they had far less than they thought. The middle-east are producing close to max and its not a very stable supplier....and it is becomming less stable, and not more. From the program i saw a few days ago the most optimistic of the serious geologists say 25 years and the most pesimistic say 10 years. The thing they do agree on is that prices will go up drasticly within the next 3-5 years.

well then why worry about global warming? The problem should fix itself in a decade or two.

Nilsen · « **Reply #9 on:** May 21, 2004, 10:24:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charon
Historically, you've always been able to find new reserves. I recall an article in the 1911 edition of the magazine I write for (and one written by a leading scientist of the day) where we were going to be out of oil by the 1940s. And this was at a time when gasoline was primarily used as a cleaning agent and coal was king.

The current mainstream (and debated) panic figure is about 45 years or so. If it was 10 to 15 years, then the oil industry and auto industry would already be in the transition stage to fuel cells etc. and be worlking to grab the largest piece of the "new" energy marketplace. They will reisit the technology as long as the current system is more profitable and efficient, but the second that changes (and 15 years is cleary well into the change envelope) they will be positioned to ride the wave.

Charon

It is very likley that new reserves will be found, and even at present rate there will be crude oil available for several decades if not more. The problem is that these oil supplies are expensive to get out of the ground/sea and that alot of those large fields we know about is in very unstable regions of the world. It does not take a lot of production cutting to see a huge rise in price for crude oil, and if you also have the added cost of getting the oil either out of unstable regions and/or drilling it out of expencive "holes" then we have a problem.
Also many of the oilfields that are found today are fairly small and makes drilling for them very "non economic". Technologies such as movable drilling ships etc will rectify this slightly, but the oil they get will still be more expencive for the end user.
The simple fact is that unless we start to use renewable fuels asap we are all gonna face a huge rise in fuel costs with all the effects that has on trade, production and personal transportation.

Blooz · « **Reply #10 on:** May 21, 2004, 10:29:28 AM »

Of the worlds proven oil reserves Russia comes second after the Middle east countries that we know so well.

After we pump the Arabs dry, it'll be Russias turn.

Halo · « **Reply #11 on:** May 21, 2004, 10:42:01 AM »

We've always had the underlying assumption that before we run out of fossil fuel we will have found a newer and better replacement.

But so far it's hard to imagine airplanes running on solar panels or electric batteries.

And if/when that eventually happens, what will be the main gross national product of all those desert wasteland countries?

Clearly we are headed for increasing unpleasantness in the decades or maybe only years ahead.

Toad · « **Reply #12 on:** May 21, 2004, 10:44:11 AM »

You guys ain't listening.

TurkeyDiesel

TURKEYDIESEL!!!!!!!!

Charon · « **Reply #13 on:** May 21, 2004, 10:57:20 AM »

Quote

The simple fact is that unless we start to use renewable fuels asap we are all gonna face a huge rise in fuel costs with all the effects that has on trade, production and personal transportation.

no real disagreement. The debated question is exactly how soon that is going to arrive. the 10 to 15 year perspective seems a bit short. 40 to 45 years may or may not be too long. The oil industry and auto industry apparently see the longer period, since there is little effort to shift technologies and develop a strategic advantage. They will resist change, but they will work hard not to be replaced by any third-party solution (that they don't have a significant role in financially) when the economics dictate that possibility.

Toad, that turkey diesel is interesting. Without havingh looked into it beyond the article I wonder how much waste is required from all food sources to have any real impact on supply. I would imagine it is only viable in the "lets get some grant money and sell it to a local government fleet using some alternative energy subsidies to make it viable..." manner. Though, that would be a guess.

Charon

Nilsen · « **Reply #14 on:** May 21, 2004, 11:17:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blooz
Of the worlds proven oil reserves Russia comes second after the Middle east countries that we know so well.

After we pump the Arabs dry, it'll be Russias turn.

The problem with that is that alot of their crude oil is located in very unpleasant areas such a Siberia.... we have a few of our oilcompanies there working to get it out. So far they are getting some out, but Russian goverment and climate is not good "allies" , therefor the oil comming out is very expencive. If the Russian giverment decides to make it easyer then you "only" have the climate on the tundra to worry about.

Even if things stay the way they are atm and barrels dont get a $ more expencive, the economy is gonna get alot worse.