OT - Gas to hit 4.00

Kimball Larsen kimball at kimballlarsen.com
Wed Jun 11 14:11:31 MDT 2008



On Jun 11, 2008, at 1:59 PM, Levi Pearson wrote:
>>
>
> Consider that not everyone has had the benefit of your upbringing and
> self-reliant nature.  Consider also that a very large portion of your
> welfare is dependant on the health of your community.  As
> self-sufficient as you try to be, you still depend to a huge degree on
> the local, national, and global economies.  These economies are fueled
> by the 'average American', and they're reliant on said people being
> able to continue spending money.  Social welfare programs, as
> abhorrent as they can be to those of us who work hard to be
> self-reliant, are aimed at keeping those who aren't (whether through
> their own fault or not) alive, healthy, and participating in the
> economy.
>
> As a thought experiment, what do you think would happen if all social
> welfare programs were completely removed?  It's probably impossible to
> say for sure, but I believe the results would be disasterous, both
> locally and globally.  Thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of
> thousands, would die due to lack of health care.  Similar numbers
> would end up on the streets, and crime would increase dramatically as
> people turned to theft to survive.  Economies would be ruined, and
> even the well-prepared, self-reliant, and lucky enough to not have
> disasterous accidents would suffer far more than they do now by paying
> for the social programs that prop up our civilization.
>
> Our culture has evolved, thanks in large part to big businesses and
> their advertising, to desire far more material goods than we can ever
> hope to afford.  It takes tremendous willpower, or at least a lot of
> training, to avoid this.  So a big part of our society walks a
> tightrope, just one big mistake or accident away from insolvency and
> complete ruin.  It just makese sense right now to provide a safety net
> beneath them, for the benefit of everyone.
>
> I would sure like for things to be different, but I also believe that
> a lot of the comforts, conveniences, and cool things we take for
> granted depend on our society being set up the way it is.  I honestly
> don't know how things could be changed without complete disaster.
> Maybe we'll end up with disaster anyway, which will force a change.  I
> don't think anything else will do it.
>
>            --Levi



This is a thoughtful and thought-provoking response.  One item that  
does come to mind is an interesting (to me) question:
Should we have a societal meltdown, which would go first - internet  
based infrastructure or real-world infrastructure.  In other words,  
which do you think we would lose first - internet access or grocery  
stores with food on the shelves?

<snarky>
You can take the food (I've got/can produce lots more), but don't take  
my intertubes...
</snarky>

-- Kimball





More information about the PLUG mailing list