Averting Doomsday

January 5th, 2013 | R. Rados 

The world didn't end like it was supposed to. The Mayans weren't wrong, it was the “experts” who falsely translated the end of a simple calendar cycle. It was our instinctual need to consume and sell fear that triumphed over our reason. Not a single human being has been able to successfully and precisely predict the end of human existence. Not Nostradamus, not a computer algorithm, not any holy book. Not even a single scientist has been able to predict a significant cataclysm – not even the climatologists who sell fear in the doomsday market of climate change and global warming. If humanity does reach an end, or a moment of drastic and sudden decline, it will be prophesied using logic, not mysticism and fear mongering. Chances are that if we are aware and prepared to accept the possible catalysts of such a scenario, our leaders would have the ability to consciously avoid a doomsday. However, unlike man-made climate change, such possible catalysts will have to be more than shoddy theories.

There are hostile countries around the world threatening to produce nuclear arms. Others already have them. Some of the ones who have them are neutral or friendly towards Western interests. This could all change in a matter of years. A degree in sociology, political science, or history isn't required to understand the dangerous implications of dwindling resources, whether it's oil, water, or food. The scarcity of essential resources is inevitable. It will happen. Some countries will run out of important resources sooner than others. It's this scenario that poses the biggest threat and could act as the catalyst to war. The most armed and most densely populated nations become ticking time bombs during times of desperation. Even the mere prospect of running out of water, energy, or wealth in the near future could be enough to trigger a violent reaction. Collectively, nations are the same as individuals. When backed into a corner, a person will act with aggression to survive. This isn't a theory, it's a fact proven by history.

Human beings want power. This isn't only bad news for those who don't have it, it can be bad news for those who do. Wealth and resources can be used to blackmail, bribe, and manipulate those who don't have them. On the other hand, those who have resources and wealth can become targets for looters. This is the nature of the game and this is how the climax of every political opera has played out. From The Roman Empire to The British Empire, the conflict has been between two or more sides trying to take something from the other. Sometimes one side wins or both sides lose.

The peak oil theory has been used for decades to justify war and green energy subsidies. It's a logical theory, but one that has experts in disagreement. According to separate handfuls of analysts and PHDs, the world will run out of oil within 20 to 200 years. It's a wide window and no one can agree on an exact time frame. The only thing scientists and experts can agree on is that it will happen – eventually. The famous bell curve has made its rounds, just like the defunct hockey stick graph used by climate alarmists. The problem with the bell curve is that exact dates can't be confirmed or corroborated by any reputable PHDs. Some say we have passed the peak, while others say the peak in oil discovery and production is decades away. Regardless, the consensus is that global oil depletion is inevitable. However, just because dates have become difficult to predict doesn't mean that accurate judgments can't be made about who might act first during a potential energy crisis.

A recent report by Citigroup suggests that Saudi Arabia could run out of oil to export by 2030. Meanwhile, the United States had a record rise in oil production in 2012, according to the Department of Energy. As reality sets in for most of the world's salesmen of fear, we are seeing more “experts” agreeing that the entire world won't run out of oil for a very, very long time. Individual countries, however, could be a different story.

Humanity's most likely demise would result from warfare or poverty. That's what should become the focal point for most fear mongering opportunists. We can worry about the chance-based catastrophes later, like meteor impacts and polar shifts. By approaching avoidable disasters with a sense of responsibility, perhaps we can work to find ways to improve our longevity as a civilization, rather than fall into the same trap as our ancestors in the Roman, Greek, Mayan, and British empires. We should adopt the same approach as climate alarmists, but with a realistic and veritable perspective. Climate science is not settled (despite what opportunistic leaders and experts try to tell us via mainstream outlets) and there are those in the scientific community that disagree with the so-called “consensus” that climate change is entirely – if at all – man-made. We, nor they, know what the cause of climate change is. What we do know is that climate change has been a part of the Earth's evolution. Without important changes in climate, humanity might not have ever existed.

Our doomsday predictions should be based on facts, not theories. Humans are fallible – that's a fact. Humans are also adaptable, compassionate, and resilient. Our selfishness, too, could prove to be of significant value, especially when it comes to choosing between war and peace. When going to war, both sides will always consider what they have to lose before making a move. If the cons out-weigh the pros, war usually isn't in the aggressor's best interest.

You're supposed to know your enemies. Sun Tzu wrote of the importance of knowing our enemies in The Art Of War. This principle places an importance on espionage. Knowledge about our enemies, friends, potential enemies, and ourselves is valuable. We should know when friends might turn into enemies and when enemies could become potential friends. Knowing everyone's weaknesses and strengths is paramount. Protecting our resources and freedoms from superpower friends and foes requires just as much knowledge as it does firepower. This makes any leader who fails to put a priority on knowledge and defence a major harbinger of defeat and collapse.

Avoiding war between two or more nations with dwindling resources could rely on trade. Much could be learned from the friendly trade relationships between Canada, the US, and Saudi Arabia. Even the developing trade relationship between Canada and Asia could offer valuable insight to anyone who has considered war as the first resort. Through mutual benefits, scarcity and depletion of energy, food, or water could be curbed. Famous Texas Congressman, Ron Paul, has touted trade as a peaceful solution to aggression and international turbulence. A lot of potential wars over resources could – likely – have been prevented by foresight, knowledge and the implementation of a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution.

What isn't peaceful is the rejection and denouncement of important scientific achievements, like genetically modified crops, the use of stem cells, and advanced methods in oil and gas extraction. All three of these things contain the potential to avert war, improve our lives, and expedite our evolution. Genetically modified crops have become living nightmares for hipsters, environmentalists, and paranoid sociopaths who have all consciously overlooked the massive benefits such crops have offered. Proven harmless, GMOs offer resilient crops and foods that are high in nutrients and immune to disease. However, the paranoid lunatic fringe won't have any of it. Their aim has become to stop all forms of human ingenuity and preserve an archaic tradition dedicated to everything “organic”. Oil pipelines have become the target of feeble activists and environmentalists who would rather see Asia take other measures to meet its growing demand for energy. Stem cells, which have the potential to cure diseases and save lives, have become the target of religious lunatics who believe that a man with a beard was able to part the seas and that hybrid humans with fluffy white wings are real.

Aside from the complexity of cultural and religious conflicts, resource shortages can be solved without war. Scientific achievements, free trade, mutual agreements, and individual freedom offer peaceful solutions to global problems. As 2013 rolls in, there is no doubt that new fears and apocalyptic scenarios will captivate the imaginations of opportunists. Documentaries will be made, books will be sold, and mainstream news will become diluted with more theoretical data to influence public opinion. As the climate change theory continues to falter, new threats will be concocted. As we realize that there is more oil to be discovered and extracted, someone will find another resource to fret about – just as someone will find a new scientific achievement to loathe. Activists will rally, causes will come and go, threats will fly, and our civilization will continue to grow or decline, depending on the choices we make. As long as we put emphasis on voluntarism, mutual benefit, peaceful conflict, and intellectual evolution, we should be able to defy history and preserve a civilization dedicated to freedom, diversity, and longevity.

That's just my opinion.