Thursday, April 28, 2005

The Logic of Collapse

I’ve just finished Joseph A. Tainter’s “The Collapse of Complex Societies”. It is a truly remarkable book—very academic, but fascinating, rigorous and very, very important. It is a powerful counterpoint to Robert Wright’s “Nonzero”, which I wrote about recently. What follows are some thoughts that derive from Tainter’s writing.

This is the single most “radical” piece of writing I have done, and for that reason I would certainly enjoy your feedback—my intent is not to provoke or alarm, but rather to follow a line of reasoning to what appears (to me) to be the logical conclusion. What follows may eventually grow into a Chapter 10 of A Theory of Power.

This whole thing starts off very simply, with as close as one can get to a “Law” of economics: When you’re hungry, you first pick the low-hanging fruit. Put another way, when faced with an ongoing problem to which there are multiple solutions, you pick the easiest solutions first. First you pick the low-hanging fruit. When hunger returns, you drag out the ladder and start picking ever more difficult to reach fruit. Simple.

In economics, this phenomenon is known as the law of diminishing marginal return. Here’s a graph from Tainter:



Initial solutions to a problem provide a high marginal return (marginal meaning the amount of extra benefit that each extra amount of investment provides). When you’re picking the low-hanging fruit, the effort required to get a single fruit is low—so the marginal return on your investment is relatively high. As depicted in the graph, the effort required for each additional fruit gets a bit greater each time—the slope of the marginal return decreases. Eventually, after you’ve taken out your ladder, and removed all the easy-to-find fruit from all the trees in the entire orchard, the amount of effort required to find one more fruit will eventually equal the reward of finding that fruit (say calories invested for calories returned). This is point B2-C2 in the graph. Marginal return is now zero. Any further effort in searching for fruit is actually costing you more than it returns—a negative marginal return.

Stepping back from our orchard for a moment, we can view social organization as an investment in complexity (structure, stratification, specialization, exchange, administration, etc.) that provides a return to the investors by meeting their needs (along Maslow’s hierarchy, perhaps). The return on investment follows the same marginal return curve as in our orchard example above. Initial investments in complexity return quite well, while later investments provide minimal—or even negative—marginal return. How much benefit (compared to cost) do 100 extra government bureaucrats provide?? In modern society, diminishing marginal returns are evident in education, agriculture, energy and resource extraction, technology R&D and other critical areas. I won’t go in to all the detail here, but Tainter provides an excellent analysis of the diminishing marginal returns for societal investments in both ancient incidents of collapse (Roman, Mayan, Chacoan, etc.) as well as the modern societal investments mentioned.

But despite the declining marginal returns, society is not capable of reducing expenditure, or even reducing the growth in expenditure. I discuss this at length in A Theory of Power, but the basic fact is that society is—at its very root—an evolutionary development that uses a continual increase in complexity to address social needs—and to ensure its own survival. So, as societies continue to invest more and more in social complexity at lower and lower marginal rates of return, they become more and more inefficient until eventually they are no longer capable of withstanding even commonplace stresses. They collapse.

This may seem too deterministic—after all, it suggests that all societies will eventually collapse. While that may cause our inherent sense of hubris to perk up for a moment, we should remember that this equation fits our data quite well—every civilization that has ever existed has, in fact, collapsed. Our present global civilization is, or course, the sole exception. A look back at the contemporary chroniclers of history shows that every “great” civilization thinks that they are somehow different, that history will not repeat with them—and their hubris is shared with gusto by members of the present global civilization.

Of course, as discrete empires and societies grow ever more cumbersome they do not always collapse in the spectacular fashion of the Western Roman Empire. If they exist in a “peer-polity” situation—that is, they are surrounded by competitors of similar levels of complexity—then they will tend to be conquered and absorbed. It is only in the case of a power vacuum—like the Chacoans or Western Romans—that we witness such a spectacular loss of complexity. In the “modern” world, we have not witnessed such a collapse as we exist in a global peer-polity continuum. When the Spanish empire grew too cumbersome the British were there to take over, and the mantel has since passed on to America, with the EU, China and others waiting eagerly in the wings. In the modern world there can no longer be an isolated collapse—our next experience with this will be global.

In fact, the modern civilization continuum has existed for so long without a global collapse because we have managed to tap new energy sources—coal, then oil—each with a higher energy surplus than the last. This has buoyed the marginal return curve temporarily with each discovery, but has not changed the fundamental dynamics of collapse.

Perhaps we should take a step back and look at collapse in general. Our psychological investment in the “goodness” of “high-civilization” leads to the commonly held conclusion that collapse is bad—and that to advocate it would be irrational. But from a purely economic point of view, collapse actually increases the overall benefit that social complexity provides to society for their level of investment. It makes economic sense. In the graph above, C3-B1 and C1-B1 provide the same benefit to society—but for dramatically different support burdens required to maintain their respective levels of complexity. C1-B1 is a much more desirable location for a society than C3-B1, so collapse from C3-B1 to C1-B1 is actually a good thing. With the growing burden of today’s global society, the global inequality and injustice that seems to grow daily, collapse is beginning to make economic sense. In fact, an entire philosophical movement, Primitivism, has sprung up dedicated to convincing the world that a “C1-B1”, hamlet society is in fact a far better place.

Despite the growing logic of collapse, in today’s peer-polity world that option does not exist except on a global scale. Today we have 3 options:

1. Continue business as usual, accepting declining marginal returns on investments in complexity (and very soon declining overall returns) until an eventual, inevitable collapse occurs globally. Continuation of present patterns will continue the escalating environmental damage, and will continue to grow the human population, with population levels in increasing excess of the support capacity of a post-collapse Earth (i.e. more people will die in the collapse).

2. Locate a new, more efficient energy source to subsidize marginal returns on our investments in complexity. This does not mean discover more oil or invent better clean coal technology—these, along with solar or wind power still provide lower marginal returns than oil in the heyday of cheap Saudi oil. Only the development of super-efficient fusion power seems to provide the ability to delay the decline of marginal returns any appreciable amount, and this will still serve to only delay and exacerbate the eventual return to option #1.

3. Precipitate a global collapse now in order to reap the economic benefits of this action while minimizing the costs of the collapse that will continue to increase with the complexity and population of our global civilization. When combined with a strategy to replace hierarchy with rhizome, as outlined in A Theory of Power, Chapter 9, this may even represent a long-term sustainable strategy.

Whoa. Am I seriously suggesting the triggering of a global collapse? For the moment I’m just suggesting that we explore the idea. If, after deliberation, we accept the totality of the three options as outlined above, then triggering collapse stands as the only responsible choice. It is—admittedly—a choice that is so far outside the realm of consideration of most people (who are strongly invested in the Myth of the West) that they will never take it seriously. But critically, it does not necessarily require their consent…

These may seem like the ramblings of a madman. But in the late Western Roman Empire, there is a fact that is simply not taught today because it is too far outside our tolerance for things that run counter to the Myth of the West: The citizens of Rome wanted to end the Empire, to dissolve its cumbersome structure, but could not reverse its pre-programmed course. Many—perhaps most—welcomed the invading barbarians with open arms.

So should collapse be triggered now, or should we wait as long as possible? If we accept the inevitability of collapse, then it should be triggered as soon as possible, as the cost of implementing a collapse strategy is continually growing…

Throughout history, when collapse has occurred, it has been a blessing. The mainstream continues to cling to the beliefs that collapse will be a terrible loss, and that it is not inevitable. Even with all of our cultural brain-washing, do we really have so much hubris as to hold on to the tired mantra that “this time, in our civilization, things will be different”?

28 comments:

sal said...

As Wright points out in Nonzero, "if there is one opinion common to ruling classes everywhere, it is that power is not in urgent need of redistributing." Hence, it seems that revolution is inexorably tied to collapse. Whether in the order of collapse followed by revolution or revolution followed by collapse. Given that revolutions yield unpredictable results then, as long as a good portion of the population does not yet have nothing to lose, it will refrain from undermining its ruling class. This would keep us on the course of maintaining the status quo despite the fact that further investments in complexity result in declining returns in order to protect existing individual gains.

Timothy said...

So are you exploring the idea of a managed failure? A sort of global "soft landing?"

I'm not sure I'm reading you right, but see if this analogy fits:
If you know you are going to take a hard fall, better to roll over and take it on the back, than wait until it is unstopable and you fall on your head.

Sherck said...

Hi, first time here, interesting post. I've also read Tainter's book, and I think another book that I read around the same time might be valuable reading for you (presuming you haven't already read it). It's William Catton's Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change.

The concepts at the heart of this book are "overshoot" and "carrying capacity." Basically, any given region (or the world as a whole) has a certain carrying capacity, which is the number of organisms it can sustainably support. In the same way that various energy supplements have gone into raising the point of diminishing marginal returns on complexity, so too have those energy supplements gone into raising the carrying capacity of the world, such that we now support over 6 billion human beings. Collapse, depending on the precise form it takes, could very well drastically reduce our ability to maintain that spike in carrying capacity, which is to say that we couldn't support anywhere near 6 billion people.

Anyway, this is just my first thought; my second is that I need to poke around your site a bit more to see more of what you've written, to place this in context...

tstreet said...

The idea of engineering a collapse may not be as radical as it seems. On a more micro level, the Australian Government is studying the possibility of essentially eliminating most Australian agriculture. Most agriculture in Australia long ago reached the point of near zero marginal returns. The idea is to kill the beast now before it ruins everything else in the Australian economy or environment that actually has a positive rate of return. This would be on the order of a mini collapse but may be applicable elsewhere.

Closer to home, it occurs to me that certain features of our society need to collapse, the sooner the better. Let's start with the suburbs. Engineer their early death with high gas prices abetted by high gas taxes. Better to have a planned program to kill them than simply wait for the sudden and disastrous unplanned collapese.

Thoughts on Australia were derived by Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse">

Anonymous said...

I agree with the analysis, but not with the conclusions. It seems that when talking about collapse it is something of a logical fallacy to think in terms of a "we" that has "options" to choose from. In the process of nearing the collapse and passing an imaginary point of no return, this "we" entity ceases to exist, at least to the extent that it can no longer make decisions or exercise options on a global scale (even if we assume that it is capable of doing so now). Collapse, when it comes, will be something that we will observe, but it seems strange to think that we will be able to precipitate it or affect its course. If you and your friends believe that collapse is imminent, then you and your friends can make an individual or group choice to adapt your lifestyle accordingly. It is a personal choice, and will not measurably affect the course of global civilization or, for that matter, the positions of the fixed stars.

Lawrence Reza Ershaghi said...

http://www.angryiranian.blogspot.com/

Jason Godesky said...

Normally, I follow wherever the facts lead me. They led me into heresy with the Roman Catholic Church, and I followed. They led me out of "the fold" of Quinn's followers, and I followed. But this step, I find myself incapable of taking. I can't refute the logic, and yet I can't take part in actually making it happen. Preparing for it as an inevitable outcome, yes. Refraining from an attempt to stop it, yes. But actually making it happen ... here is where "the native hue of resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment with this regard their currents turn awry, and lose the name of action."

Jeff Vail said...

I agree that I can't easily follow where my own analysis leads me, but I do think that just accepting that this is an issue that can actually be discussed is in itself worthwhile. Normally such a notion--that precipitating collapse may actually be the best course of action--is seen as so far beyond the pale that we just ignore it outright. At least by agreeing that it's a notion that should be entertained--despite our ingrained objections to it--removes an irrational block from our brains and may let us see new options, or at least old options in a new light. Who knows?

Actually, taking action here is just as irrational as denying that as an option--both are based on a very incomplete view of our predicament. As you mentioned with your own life, I'm just following where my analysis leads me at the moment. Who knows where that will be tomorrow?

requiem_netau said...

Firstly, what a well-written article, it sure is a pleasure to come across a blog such as yours. For you interest, I will repost an abridged version of this comment to my own journal in an effort to propagate discussion. Now to the reply.

I am not sure if I agree with the endpoint of the complexity determinism discussed as being one of societal collapse. While I strongly agree with the discussed quadratic function of complexity to yield, this is not a scenario we always see occurring in reality. My primary example of contention is the biological system; with it one can illustrate why the model of collapse is a constrained view.

It is known that in wars of natural selection (predator, prey) or sexual selection (who has the longest and prettiest tail feather), it is an going struggle for superiority. Naturally, these systems increase their potential by becoming increasingly complex, always in the form of a stepwise progression (a biological system cannot radically redesign itself, eg the underlying flaw of the human eye: the blind spot). For example, an animal (prey) is being targeted by another species, in order to repel the predator the prey uses venom. Initially the venom is successful in killing the predator, however after time the predator evolves partial immunity to the venom. This can begin a spiralling war between venom toxicity and immunity. At some point the venom becomes so incredibly toxic that it begins to damage the host body (actually known to occur in a particular Australian species), an example of the yield down-turn discussed in your article. However, at stages like this, completely new techniques of fending off the prey may evolve, such as different skin pigmentation. Over time the animals with new skin pigmentation which still maintained the overly toxic production mechanism become less successful than those who those who evolved a decreased venom production system; simply as such toxic venom was simply no longer required. That is, the system lost genes in order to progress. This is well known in the animal kingdom, in humans with the loss of the tail in order to walk upright, our decreased ability in hearing, sight, smell etc. Thus, a small change in keeping with evolution can cause a radical redesign in how the subject interacts with a system. Because of these system-interaction redesigns, the subject does not head towards one of collapse under the weight of its own complexity. A somewhat similar analogy can be drawn with the arts, where each new period in music or art starts off simply, over time moving to a stage of maximal complexity before a new period begins.

Thus, as with humans, our society continues to exist due to its ability to redesign or extend itself. However unlike a biological system, our design of Western society can not afford to simply die out in favour of a whole new model like you propose. The result would inevitably lead to war on a global scale, no nation would be willing to let its citizens die if an alternate route existed; there will always be one politician who is willing to 'do what it takes'. Such a global collapse would lead to civil disorder on a massive scale, border wars and ultimately global conflict. It has been said if the we were to enter into global nuclear war, where the majority of human infrastructure and knowledge were lost, human kind would never make it to the stars; post-war humankind would no longer have sufficient natural resources to rebuild to the stage we have almost reached: near-limitless clean energy. If that ever happens, humankind is doomed to certain extinction by remaining on this planet.

Of course, whether our politicans are willing to muster the enormous politcal momentum required to shift our current course of global catastrophe is not yet clear. ">To me the most pressing example is that of the environment.

troutsky said...

Our perception of collapse is a sort of toppling, forces propelled by gravity or the sudden release of inertia and gaining intensity with their downward momentum. Just as we typically think of rupture, in the Marxist sense, as a huge,catastrophic deflation.Perhaps rupture, or collapse could more closely resemble a faint pin prick in a giant balloon.

Efficiency is generally gained through cooperative arrangements, planning and design.(I may have given away my socialist leanings) Design which includes social organization, structures and systems that value sustainability over accumulation. One picks the low hanging fruit at the same time one picks the higher fruit, allowing both to replenish at sustainable rates. Indigenous societies were (a few still are) quite proficient at this technique.
In modern society there is a disconnect between those doing the investing and those affected by the investment decisions (class conflict)so the flow of information is distorted.

Prax said...

Well, one must consider that nowhere in the entire history of mankind have we been able to create completely self-replicating systems.

with the arrival of the global supply chain, we are inching closer to an organism that supports us and can more or less replicate itself.

with fablabs and nanotechnology, we will be eventaully reach the situation where we can drop a seed in the ground and grow a tool, ahouse, a car, anything.... we can live theoritically, like a peasant, "growing" whatever we need, except, we would essentially have the ability to create anything we think of.

nanotech is the only thing that can save this civilization from collapse.

requiem_netau said...

reply: Prax

I couldn't agree more. Most importantly will be the nano-repair machines, such as the ones capable of cleaning up the environmental hazard areas like dumping ponds and high-use air conditioning filters etc. Although I think the biggest boon will come from those that can repair our own bodies from the polluting pressures of today, greatly increasing our lifespan.

Of course, it will also usher in a new era of political assassinations and privacy concerns; on which America and Israel will no doubt lead the way.

Jeff Vail said...

I'm concerned about the tendency to think that technology--whether in the form of nanotech, zero point energy, or something else--will save us.

The envisioned hordes of nanotech entities that could, in theory, answer all of our problems will not be so simple to control. They will exhibit the same emergent behaviors that we still can't adequately explain or control in our societies, bodies, in bacteria, etc. For example, our brian is made up of nothing more than a bunch of very simple cells--things that we understand very well on the individual level. We don't, however have the first clue about how the interaction of these cells produce something like imagination--this is emergence.

I'm concerned that until we understand emergence, any ability in true nanotechnology that we develop will come back to bite us. In "Jurassic Park" there was a comment about emergence: "life will find a way". And make no mistake: nanotech on the level mentioned here IS life.

So is nanotech possible? On the order mentioned above, maybe. But can we control it? That I'm less convinced about...

Take a look at Chapter 7 of "A Theory of Power", entitled "Neutral Technology and the Demands of Power" for more on this theme:

http://www.jeffvail.net/2004/10/theory-of-power-chapter-7.html

troutsky said...

I believe it is a distraction to use the dream world of the techno-future to distance oneself from the real time issues needing attention.Many such advances are unambiguous but many present quandries.The Greek "Pandoras Box" is a relevant teaching.Brave New Worlds must be explored with an extremly critical awareness.

Jeff Vail said...

John Robb's Blog (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/) links to an interesting article that I think is very relevant to this topic:

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/fed/Theory/publication/pub2004/dobsonIREP04.pdf

Evolution of complex systems cause the load on that system to run ever closer to its maximum capacity. The closer a system runs to its maximum capacity, the greater the potential for catastrophic, cascading failure in that system. Interestingly, and at first counterintuitively, fixing the minor flaws in the operation of the system (i.e. by instituting global electronic currency exchange & markets, globalization, decreasing trade barriers, etc.), one actually increases the chance of catastrophic failure because these fixes cause the system to run even closer to the very edge of capacity.

Chaos said...

That sounds so much like the discussion of entropy in Kunstler's The Long Emergency and how simplifying systems removes the "brakes" on entropy and, impliedly, leads to collapse.

paul said...

It seems reasonable that any system that has an energy gradient will be pressured to distribute the energy from the gradient as widely as possible within itself.

A system ( such as the earth ) with many possible states of existence will have a great number of choices for its energy distribution.

The simplest of those states would be the first to be occupied. As time passed the simple states would become "filled" and more complex states would gain energy.

With the sun greating the energy gradient for billions of years, it is not surprising that the earth would have "evolved" to become a very complex system.

The earth has recovered, with different species, after every "extinction" event. It's complexity is not a matter of accident or chance.

The marginal gain of complexity for the earth is now very small. It does not, however, collapse because the sun's energy pressure is unrelenting.

The earth's complexity reflects its ability to adapt to the sun's energy pressure by gathering in and storing some of that energy in the form complexity.

It is no accident that, when dried, all organic matter will burn. Complexity is reduced and the stored energy released.

In the last 200 years humankind has discovered highly concentrated ancient complexity in the form of coal and oil. We have used this complexity to release energy for our own purposes.

With it we have created our own alternative complexity.

That complexity is in direct competition with the sun - not an enviable position.

We have only been able to construct our " civilization" because the ancient energy is more concentrated than the sun's and that has ( temporarily ) given us the upper hand - our marginal gain has been greater then the sun's.

As we exhaust the legacy from the past we will no longer be able to out-compete the sun. The fossil fuel infrastructure that is the framework for our "society" will crumble. Weeds will surely grow in the cracks in our pavement and we will not have the energy to re-pave.

The "collapse" that occurs will be one of energy density. High energy density fossil fuels will no longer be available to allow us to do whatever we want, whenever we want, on whatever scale we want. Rebuilding New Orleans by throwing energy at it will not be possible.

We will do what the sun allows, when the sun allows it, at a rate the the sun permits.

Complexity stands on the shoulders of continuously available energy. Energy is required for both construction and maintenance.

The first lesson of the earth is that the sun provides sufficient energy for the development of incredible complexity. The second lesson of the earth is that complexity is only sustainable if the rate of energy consumption does not exceed the rate of energy supply.

Most civilizations collapsed because they consumed the energy/complexity resources that surrounded them faster that the sun could rebuild.

Our collapse will be extreme and inevitable because we have built an infrastructure not only from the sun's currently provided stores of energy/complexity but even more so from past non-renewable stores.

The quadratic curve that we have built is one time only unless we can find an energy source to match fossil fuels.

Even if such an energy source were to be found collapse would remain highly probable.

We would remain in global competition with the sun for complexity supremacy and on a global scale the sun's energy input is so prodigious that we would lose the competition.

The sun provides the energy/complexity that generates air and clean water and soil. If we found an energy source that would permit us to continue our current "developed" lifestyles, we would only find that we would have to use impossibly large quantities of that energy to create the equivalent of the sun's provisions that we are now destroying.

We forget that we are the sun's children at our peril.

Anonymous said...

There's something to be said here about the logic of collapse. But it seems to be forgotten that all of us--collapse theorists, etc. are a small minority.

As a suburbanite, I leave my house after researching your blog and others. There is no individual who wishes for this society to collapse. No one is welcoming this collapse.

I think Tainter's idea that somehow "the people" welcome collapse after a society is mistaken. If collapse takes place now, people will not welcome it.

I also find quite strange the "all-or-nothing" mentality that pervades collapse theorists. They seem to be oblivious that even in cases of collapse, it was not "total." The "survivors" of Chaco Canyon, Cahokia, even the Mayans may have reduced their social complexity, but did retain a horticultural way of life.

Anonymous said...

I'm suprised no one mentioned Malcolm Gladwell's book "Tipping Point". Given the inertia of current consumption, we are well on our way to collapse. The globalization of trade, which propagates this culture of consumption only serves to accelerate and harshen the time and severity of the crash. Living through it will seem like forever as we use our sophistication to move back to bicycles, wind up clocks, seasonal-local foods, chess, etc. Gone will be easy air travel, RVs, huge suburban homes, media centers, etc.

With some luck we will transition through the consumption patterns of Europe, using trains, recycling, etc. But if we are not prudent, we will devolve to the consumption patterns and lifestyles of rural India and North Korea.

The worst case would be like "Atlas Shrugged". Best to join John Galt or be with the Bedouin, anarchists, survivalists, etc.

Anonymous said...

Could certain shadowy figures in the halls of power be collapse theorists?

Could the teetering point of world finances be a planned for stage in the devolvement of the Anglo- American empire?

I think not but its fuel for the imagination

Andrew Beyea said...

the idea that any collapse today would be welcomed by the masses is simply absurd.
is it hard for you to see that one of the consequences of global collapse would be starvation on a global scale? if the world's population returned to a pre-industrial-revolution level, it would require a reduction of 6 billion people, or 6 out of 7 humans.
Further, I don't see how a chaotic contraction of civilization will lead to a reduction in coercive/authoritarian control. In a world with increased competition for resources, and deadly consequences for inaction, I believe that we would see a marked increase in the use of force, regardless of the duration of any collapse. It won't matter if it is instant or drawn out over a length of time, people facing death and holding weapons will likely kill rather than die by starvation.

Jeff Vail said...

Andrew-

The issue isn't whether it is better to have collapse and starvation of billions or not. The issue is whether a faster collapse, or a sooner collapse will result in fewer people starving (among other measures of misery) than a slower collapse or a later collapse. If you accept the basic premise that the higher we go the farther we have to fall, then a later collapse will kill more and inflict more misery--there the question becomes how you account for "time value of humanity." I think it is a moral wrong to live it up now knowing that we're just pushing, and increasing, the misery to our grand childrens' generation, but some people disagree...

Neville said...

Hi Jeff,

Well written piece, and I don't find the logic far-fetched or shocking in the least. Zooming out to a larger view on life and the universe, it should be no shocker that everything goes through seven stages: conception, gestation, birth, growth, production of by-products, dwindling and death. We see it everywhere, all around us, in all recorded history...so I don't know why some folks find it hard to accept. It's just the law of the universe.

My question is about the details of your conclusion - what do you mean when you say "trigger a collapse"? I couldn't find clarity on that in your post or in the comments that followed, nor can I think of anything obvious. I know there are several groups of people preparing for a global collapse by organizing themselves into self-sufficient communities that are minimally (or not at all) dependent on electricity and oil. But that's just preparation.

So what's "triggering"?

- Neville

fdg said...

I like your blog. Thank you. They are really great . Ermunterung ++ .
Some new style Puma Speed is in fashion this year.
chaussure puma is Puma shoes in french . Many Franzose like seach “chaussure sport” by the internet when they need buy the Puma Shoes Or nike max shoes. The information age is really convenient .




By the way ,the nike max ltd is really good NIKE air shoes ,don’t forget buy the puma mens shoes and nike air max ltd by the internet when you need them . Do you know Nike Air Shoes is a best Air Shoes . another kinds of Nike shoes is better . For example , Nike Air Rift is good and Cheap Nike Shoes .the nike shox shoes is fitting to running.



Spring is coming, Do you think this season is not for Ugg Boots? maybe yes .but this season is best time that can buy the cheap ugg boots. Many sellers are selling discounted. Do not miss . Please view my fc2 blog and hair straighteners blog.
.thank you .


I like orange converse shoes ,I like to buy the cheap converse shoes by the internet shop . the puma shoes and the adidas shoes (or addidas shoes) are more on internet shop .i can buy the cheap nike shoes and cheap puma shoes online. It’s really convenient.
Many persons more like Puma basket shoes than nike air rift shoes . the Puma Cat shoes is a kind of Cheap Puma Shoes .
If you want to buy the Cheap Nike Air shoes ,you can buy them online. They are same as the Nike Air shoes authorized shop. Very high-caliber Air shoes and puma cat shoes . the cheap puma shoes as same as other.




polo shirts

ralph lauren polo shirts
chaussure puma

chaussure sport



chaussures puma

puma CAT

ed hardy clothing

ed hardy clothes



ed hardy womens

ed hardy sunglasses

fdg said...

http://wvvv6.spaces.live.com
http://pumashoes2009.spaces.live.com
http://buy-cheap-ugg-boots.blogspot.com
http://www.eshooes.com/cheap-shoes-show
http://good-puma.blogspot.com/
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1447786117

j said...

Burberry polo shirt the steady, solid, so many young girls also love it. Speaking of people of a ralph lauren polo, think it a sign of nobility elegant waving in the horse club.spyder jacket in the cold in your winter activities can be easily.columbia jacket it is expensive, but here you do not need to consider the price of it. the north face jacket one of my favorite money, I do not know how many in this world of its fans.
ed hardy clothing
ed hardy clothes
ed hardy shirts
ed hardy t-shirts
ed hardy sunglasses
ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens
Wholesale Handbags
Cheap Handbags

Anonymous said...

I think, without a doubt, that someone (group, entity) will attempt to orchestrate the coming collapse as you state in option 3. (The likelihood has probably increased slightly since your post even..;) But it won't have the ring of equality that you seem to present. Whoever gets to the attempted orchestration first will ensure their family, neighbors, statesmen, countrymen have a definite advantage over others. This won't be a collaborative effort among world leaders. And ultimately, the success of such a move is doubtful given that knowledge of this dynamic system is limited in the effects of planned manipulations. It is way beyond human brain capacity. Interesting to think about it though

theprophet said...

There was this guy who believed very much in true love and decided to take his time to wait for his right girl to appear. He believed that there would definitely be someone special out there for him, but none came.
Every year at Christmas, his ex-girlfriend would return from Vancouver to look him up. He was aware that she still held some hope of re-kindling the past romance with him. He did not wish to mislead her in any way. nike shoxsSo he would always get one of his girl friends to pose as his steady whenever she came back. That went on for several years and each year, the guy would get a different girl to pose as his romantic interest. So whenever the ex-girlfriend came to visit him, she would be led into believing that it was all over between her and the guy. nike womens shoes The girl took all those rather well, often trying to casually tease him about his different girlfriends, or so, as it seemed! In fact, the girl often wept in secret whenever she saw him with another girl, but she was too proud to admit it. Still, every Christmas, she returned, hoping to re-kindle some form of romance. But each time, she returned to Vancouver feeling disappointed.
Finally she decided that she could not play that game any longer. puma mens shoes Therefore, she confronted him and professed that after all those years, he was still the only man that she had ever loved. mens puma shoesAlthough the guy knew of her feelings for him, he was still taken back and have never expected her to react that way. He always thought that she would slowly forget about him over time and come to terms that it was all over between them. nike shox Although he was touched by her undying love for him and wanted so much to accept her again, he remembered why he rejected her in the first place-she was not the one he wanted. nike 360 air maxSo he hardened his heart and turned her down cruelly. nike running shoesSince then, three years have passed and the girl never return anymore. They never even wrote to each other. NIKE air shoes The guy went on with his life..... still searching for the one but somehow deep inside him, he missed the girl.
On the Christmas of 1995, he went to his friend's party alone. "Hey, how come all alone this year? Where are all your girlfriends? What happened to that Vancouver babe who joins you every Christmas?", asked one of his friend.nike air max He felt warm and comforted by his friend's queries about her, still he just surged on.
Then, he came upon one of his many girlfriends whom he once requested to pose as his steady. He wanted so much to ignore her ..... not that he was impolite,wholesale nike shoes but because at that moment, he just didn't feel comfortable with those girlfriends anymore. nike shox torchIt was almost like he was being judged by them. The girl saw him and shouted across the floor for him. Unable to avoid her, he went up to acknowledge her.
"Hi......how are you? Enjoying the party?" the girl asked.
"Sure.....yeah!", he replied.
She was slightly tipsy..... must be from the whiskey on her hand.