"I don't see revolution anywhere near the horizon."

I agree.  Our existing society is very flexible, and much more cooperative than it seems, sometimes.

Poverty will never bring spirituality.  I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a helpful guide here: satisfaction of security and basic material needs is needed before people can focus on self-actualization and spiritual growth, and anxiety about basic economic needs will never help that.

The '60's are a clear example of people starting to think about spiritual growth, at a time when economic needs seemed solved.

Those Americans who have more than enough economically haven't realized that there's more to life.  The culture doesn't have enough info for them, as organized religion has pretty much lost it's mystical, spiritual growth side.  Many people are reaching for more (in evangelical religion, new age ideas, etc), but don't know where to turn for something authentic and effective.

It's understandable that people would hope that shock therapy would wake people up, but it's wrong-headed.  People need good information, not fear or coercion.

People need good information, not fear or coercion.
There's plenty of good information available to anyone even mildly interested.  The fundamental issue is people's (and society in general) investment in the current paradigm and their unwillingness to confront anything threatening that paradigm - no matter how well the facts are presented to them.
"There's plenty of good information available to anyone even mildly interested. "

That's really not true.  There's lots of information, but almost all of it is very low quality.  Further, most people don't know what to look for: they don't know what they don't know.

"The fundamental issue is people's (and society in general) investment in the current paradigm..."

hmmm.  That's certainly a factor.  But a lot of people just don't have role models for anything diffeent from fulfillment through consumption, popularity, entertainment, etc.

And those who are strongly invested in authoritarian, inflexible ideas certainly aren't going to get reformed through adversity - they're likely to just get worse.

You're missing my point, which was not about the quantity of quality information available on the subjects of energy and the environment.  These topics have been well documented since the 1970s, with the science of ecology taking off in the 1980s, etc.  Today there is a veritable explosion of books and research on these and related topics.

No role models for anything different than consumption, popularity, entertainment?  You must be kidding.  Ever heard of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, or Muhammed?  People don't pay attention to these role models because their personal energy is totally devoted to upholding the current paradigm.

I have news for you regarding authoritarians and dogmatists.  They are by definition not open to reform, and struggle, possibly force, is the only way to get rid of them.

"You're missing my point, which was not about the quantity of quality information available on the subjects of energy and the environment."

Well, I'm not sure now whether you were talking about spirituality or energy.  I was talking about spirituality.  There is an enormous quantity of info available, but most of it is misleading or low quality (see Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark for his discussion of bad info).  

"Ever heard of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Ghandi, or Muhammed? "

I'm talking about role models in everyday life.  The ones you're talking about are very distant, and their messages have been caught in the maze of modern organized religion, which as I noted above has completely lost touch with the mystical, spiritual side of religious practice.

"I have news for you regarding authoritarians and dogmatists.  They are by definition not open to reform, and struggle, possibly force, is the only way to get rid of them. "

I'm talking about our friends and neighbors, who have been caught by authoritarian ways of thinking (I have to believe what I'm told by the Pastor, President, etc).  I think possibly what I'm talking about isn't intuitive to you, because you seem to believe that coercion is the only way to make change.

If you look closely at the role models you mention, all (with the possible exception of Muhammed - I know what the Pope is saying lately, but I'm not an expert on Islam) advocate peaceful change.

Jesus fed the 5,000 from only 1 loaf of bread and some fishes. That's some pretty amazing EROEI energy source he had access too. Doesn't seem to apply to us.

Dark energy + Dark Matter == how many do you want ?

Trust me.

Sorry to be opaque but consider this http://www.c3.lanl.gov/mega-math/workbk/map/mpbkgd.html The traditional four color problem but ask the question how many shades of grey are needed to color a map ? Is the answer still four ? If you choose the concept of color with a rational value does the four color problem even make sense ? If you can prove it does how does it relate to the integer problem. This is the problem faced by dark energy/dark matter Are you even asking the right hard questions. Sometimes you have to question the question. Btw it you can answer the above prove its not 42 :) Mike
All these role models have one thing in common...
..ambivalence in the face of adversity on the
basis of a variety of outcomes...all of which
deny the dialectical nature of reality...which
by its nature is a dispassionate confluence of
events.

In other words, information and
synthesis equal state. Systemic change is a
natural event...its quality however is
determined by the underlying noise.

For our understanding could you translate this into English?

We actually agree on something. I was going to ask the same question.
Hello Nick,

I hope you have been reading my Zimbabwe posts.  I believe this can be illustrative of the likely path ahead.  Mugabe's people are starving, but he has now purchased $240 million worth of Chinese fighters to further consolidate his power, and Chinese military advisors are training the Zim military how to supress popular revolt.  Recall that Mao Zedong was very ruthless and successful with this strategy.

Most of the riots we see around the globe are by Peakoil ignorant masses-- they pillage when fuel prices or electricity prices are raised-- they riot for MPP.  Americans will do they same when blackouts occur, or no fuel is available for their SUVs.  People WILL NOT riot or protest for early paradigm shift whereby 60-75% of us and our children will abandon their vehicles, then spend their days in manual permaculture--But They Should Riot for this shift in lifestyle direction if everyone would accept detritus entropy.  We are headed for the full Thermo-Gene Collision, IMO.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Zimbabwe was on this path long before peak oil, and it's situation has very little to do with PO, though clearly PO has made it worse.

I agree that PO won't make people riot for a new paradigm of agricultural poverty.

I disagree that such a riot would be a good idea, or that agricultural poverty is dictated by PO: agriculture can run just fine with electric tractors (or possibly on E3 ethanol), and non-oil fertilizer combined with crops like soy that have low fertilizer needs.  

Right now agriculture is dependent on oil-based transportation and ferilizer, and sudden depletion would be a big problem, but that could be fixed in a 10-15 year transition.

Zimbabwe was on this path long before peak oil, and it's situation has very little to do with PO, though clearly PO has made it worse.

Totoneila's point is *not* that Zimbabwe's collaps is caused by peakoil. The way I see it Totoneila just points to Zimbabwe as an example of a collapsing society.

Some "peakoilers" (Whatever that may mean: It is not an ideology, nor a movement) point to Cuba as well, also not because Cuba's predicaments are caused by peakoil, but because it shows that a collapsing society can stop the collaps at certain level. And that does not mean those people advocate communist dictatorship.

As Matthew Simmons said: we are heading for unchartered territory. Therefore we have no ready examples in history. We have to do with these to give a tad of an idea what might happen.

Yes, I have and many thanks, though they sadden.

Just as sadly China is only doing what the USA has done, and UK before, with other countries' regimes as dire or worse than Mugabe's.

Somehow we have to get the awareness of peak oil, energy and resource depletion into the consciousness of enough people for rebellion to happen - the current model is broken, the current powers that be won't change enough or fast enough.

Perhaps the tactic of brief takeover of broadcast media is worth considering?

Perhaps someone has already stated this further down the thread. If not then I will here.

Religion and Sprituality are NOT THE SAME.

Religion is a business.

Spirituality can function without religion.

Religion uses 'supposed' spirituality to blind the congregations. Into giving money, their time and ego to the leader.

We have lots of religion. We have almost zero spirituality.

Yeah, as I said above, religion has pretty much lost it's spiritual side.  The closest thing most people get to real spiritual prayer seems to be asking for favors.
"In fact, amongst the chattering classes, spirituality is far more highly regarded than religion, because religion is entangled in the public realm of ritual and behaviour, of institutions and beliefs, a realm in which questions of truth and duty may be raised, whereas the 'spiritual' floats free from fact and calculation and responsibility, massaging in fantasies of feeling the bruised narcissism of well heeled individualists."

Nicholas Lash, in Holiness, Speech and Silence

That sounds good, but what does it really mean?

It sounds like a statement of authoritarian religion: "questions of truth and duty"?  Duty to what? Obey authority?  Obey conservative authority?

Any time someone uses a disrespectful term like "chattering classes", their burden of proof sharply rises.  It's perfectly clear they have a strong bias, so let's see proof.  Well researched statistics that people who talk about spirituality are in fact less responsible.

I have to suspect this writer just doesn't like intellectuals, or "liberals".  He clearly distrusts people who think for themselves, and who aren't content with a simple faith.

A search of his book makes clear that he has no understanding of meditation, or a mysticism in the Christian tradition.  He's a good example of what I was talking about.

The point he is making is that (to violently condense the argument) 'spirituality' (and 'religion') are post-Enlightenment inventions; that 'spirituality' abstracted from a specific religious tradition is not much more than a self-indulgence that meshes perfectly with contemporary capitalist structures; and that the different religious traditions are publicly accountable, not least to the notion of 'truth'.

There is, as you might imagine, rather a lot of argument lying behind that summary paragraph - and this isn't really the context for pursuing it further, although I do happen to believe that theology has an awful lot to say that is relevant to how we react to Peak Oil. Unfortunately most conversations - like this one - are vitiated by disagreements over the most basic terms. It's not an argument that we can just leap into, without a lot of preparatory work to clear the ground. Unfortunately.

By the way, Nicholas Lash is an intellectual himself (recently retired Cambridge Professor), and to claim that he doesn't understand 'mysticism in the Christian tradition' is a remarkably thorough demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. If you'd like to learn more - in particular, to gain some insight into what Christian mysticism is and teaches - you should read his 'Easter in Ordinary'.

Fascinating.  Well, I would like to know a lot more about this.  I have to admit, he provoked me a bit with the disrespectful, apparently conservative tone of that paragraph, and I may have leapt to conclusions based on excerpts I read from that one book.

My basic feeling is that organized religion has lost the ability to use prayer and contemplation to make a real difference in one's life - to dissolve emotional problems, to become stronger emotionally so as to be both more compassionate for other and independent of arbitrary authority.

I see many individuals who seem to have inner strength who are active in religions, but I don't see a good indication that the religions actually foster that strength.  They don't teach techniques of prayer or meditation that really are effective (that's what I'm referring to when I talk about mystical traditions).

What do you think?

If you send me an e-mail I'll gladly pursue this off-list (the name at hotmail.com). But in a nutshell, I think your point is a good and fair one when applied to much US religion; it's less fair in other cultures and other contexts.
"Religion" and "spirituality" are the same thing in different guises.

I see religion as more of the "tell me what to do, I'm uncomfortable thinking for myself" ideology... Whereas "spirituality" always arises out of more occult and new-agey paganesque type of systems, usually people leaving the status quo cults. The ex-abrahamic cult followers who then turn to the nicer "spitiuality" and proceed to take yoga classes, etc.

Both are just systems of doctrine with different twists.

Maybe if you define "spirituality" with the "mysteriousness of science" then I'll be down with it. But it seems like you guys are going to route of incense candles and meditation? Who can win the semantic? No, no, my definition is right--each side implores.

As of now, the both of you seem arguing for your own splinter group definitions of that classic logic destroyer "faith", the the purveyors thereof.

Anyway, oil is hardly spiritual, or religious.

"to gain some insight into what Christian mysticism is and teaches"...... No thanks.

"Religion" and "spirituality" are the same thing in different guises.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
I am a strict atheist (no gods, no spirits having any kind of "will" or individuality, no supernatural superstitions, no Gaia, etc...), yet I do have spiritual practices without any doctrine.
May be it is just me who have a different definition of spirituality?

No, I'm not sure I know what I'm talking about.

=]

That is precisely why I joined up in a conversation about "religion" and "spirituality".

Kevembuangga practices 'spirituality' without a 'spirit' by Kevembuangga's own words.  That's like practicing sexuality without having a sex, like an amoeba.  A strict atheist would avoid the word 'spirituality' like a chaste Christian avoids using the words 'cunt' or 'cock'.  Kevembuangga is unable to understand the last phrases Kevembuangga employed.  Kevembuangga's bwana taught Kevembuangga not to worship the phallic idols of Kevembuangga's tribe, but Kevembuangga did not listen.
The meanings of words "wobble" slightly around some common core there is NO incontrovertible definition, language is not mathematics.
Avoid Voodoo Linguistics.

Spirituality isn't a monopoly of religious nutcases, nor are they allowed to define the meaning of words according to their paranoid tales (BIG God is watching you).
They may not pretend to be "masters", THAT'S THE POINT!

See Humpty Dumpty :

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'


The meanings of words "wobble" slightly around some common core there is NO incontrovertible definition, language is not mathematics.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

The first sentence here betrays Kevembuangga's poor, cavalier use of English.
It IS voodoo linguistics, with grammar so deficient that we could ask the questions, "Does Kevembuangga have a high school education?  Is Kevembuannga the product of the American Public Education Ebonics Program?".  Kevembuannga is a masterful butcher of the English tongue.  Kevembuangga is a literary hypocrite who misuses quotes to make Kevembuangga's linguistorelativistic rhetoric seem to be legitimate.  Kevembuangga is really identified here with the MASTER abuser of language, Humpty Dumpty, and not with the spiritual seeker of language clarity, Alice.
When I use the words 'spiritual practices', I know and understand what they mean.  When Kevembuangga uses such words, Kevembuangga can only infer that they mean 'just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'.

The first sentence here betrays Kevembuangga's poor, cavalier use of English.

If you did understand the "first sentence" please rewrite it to your taste so I can learn from this.

As you claim to be a "genius" take one of the Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests, say, the Titan Test and please reports the results on TOD, that will give you some "authority" that you seem to be looking for...

Year 1960; Stanford Binet = 140
Year 1978; Wechsler Adult = 139

 I am 52 years old and have had to live with myself since I was 6.
Now my wife and children have to live with me, too.

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. I'm pretty sure Kevem only scored about 500 on Space Invaders.
Of course you beg the question. What happened before you were 6?
Hi Dumbo (sorry, I still score higher than you on IQ tests, 30 or 40+ years on) I'm your age and have lived with myself 6 years longer than you seem to realise you have. Your wife and children do not have to live with you, they could choose otherwise, I'll refrain from further comment being ignorant of the particular circumstances.

What was the relevence of your self confessed inadequacy?

The word is spelled 'relevance', Agric.

When I was four and five years old, I spoke of a great many ideas that the others couldn't grok.  My parents sent me to a child psychiatrist for doing that.  The shrink told them that I was too smart for my own good and referred me to a psychologist, who gave me intelligence tests.  I was proclaimed the family genius and was made to pay for being such ever since.  They took me out of parochial school and sent me to a special school where there were 'others like yourself'.  I have since realized that parents need to make up excuses for all the good things they do to their own children, as I have bred two imperfectly adjusted yet perfectly beautiful kids of my own.  In any case, I sometimes wish that I was never gifted with the self-knowledge of my intellectual state.  In order to keep from repeating my successes as a geoscientist, for instance, I become forced by pride to outdo them.  Alas, this striving can make one weary.  As Ecclesiastes laments, "1:17 I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also was a chasing after wind. 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.".

It is, well spotted, I have occasional spelling blind spots, thanks.

Thanks, too, for not rising to my taunt, you have some wisdom too, that is good to know and sometimes hard to find in smart folks.

But you ain't that smart, one in a hundred, perhaps one in a couple of hundred, certainly no smarter than one in a thousand. Sad if your intelligence kind of blighted your youth, it sometimes happens.

Good luck with your children, all I can suggest is let them be and become themselves though that is always hard. Sad to hear you are not wise enough to not need pride.

I find little in the Christian and Muslim books to interest me, been thinking that monotheism is perhaps a fundamental (sic) problem. I'm more Pagan (though not really that) than Tao but I find this as enlightening as any:
http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/

been thinking that monotheism is perhaps a fundamental (sic) problem.

I'm a dumbo next to you genius guys --probably an 80 on the IQ scale.

But as to monotheism being the problem --Doh! It is the worship and cultivation of the reptilian brain. You genius guys should have figured that one out at age 5.3141 if not earlier. :-)

But as to monotheism being the problem --Doh! It is the worship and cultivation of the reptilian brain.

No.
To emerge, the "father figure" needs the mammalian brain to unify the paranoid fears (reptilian) into a single omnipotent agency.

You speak blasphemy.

The Reptilian is Lord of all hosts.
Yee shall have no other before me.
Read your reptilian Ten Commandments.
In all reptilian religions the feminine/mammalian or limbic layer is subjegated to living under a burkah. It is not permissible but to hear one voice, one master. I am not only a paranoid and masculine master but also an angry and jealous one. The one is one. There is no other. There is no daughter. There is no holy spirit. Not three. Just the one. One supreme voice. One leader decider-man. Those who worship the three are an abomination. Those who acknowledge the many are followers of the pig and must face the sword. I am that I am.

Damn! That was good. I haven't heard anything like that since that Planet of the Apes movie where they were all worshipping the missiles.

...Oh...yeah...and Zardoz.

Two of my favorite movies also ... the old version of Apes, and also Omega Man
Religion...the opium haze of disappintment
assuaged......spirituality....the reverential
light of privilege enthralled.
The stratification of wealth you mention is an unavoidable consequence of resource depletion.

In fact the rich/poor gap has never been bigger than it is today.

That's manageable on a local or even national level... but when critical resource competition comes between nations... it means war.

I'm sure partnerships will be born and fall a thousand times before all is said & done. But as a favorite author wrote...

"When times are hard, table manors change."

Today's contract negotiation process to secure resources is a function of our relative prosperity as a species. Absent our mitigating wealth, a darker vision emerges.

If we could avoid fighting over shrinking energy resources, we might indeed reach your long plateau of sustainable living, without terrible loss.

If we can manage the hat trick here... it'll be the very first time for man however. We have an unbroken record of murdering one another in pursuit of our goals. My fellow countrymen are overseas right now, killing & getting killed in support of our governments goals.

So do I think that cooperation among the elite will stave off the consequences of depletion?

No.

But I think war will...

That sounds about right.

Somewhat unsure about the 'cooperation amongst the elite(s)' - I think it is probably best the less this is, if the elites really cooperated then it would be more of the non-elites that they would choose to sacrifice.

Think. Elites A and B meet and realise there is a problem: resources for 100 million but a population of 200 million. Let's have a war that eliminates 100m. Best to keep any elites at odds, better still to kill them.

Best to keep any elites at odds, better still to kill them.

But if the total number of "elites" killed from A and B does not reach 100 million you still have "the problem".
What do you do then?

P.S. Beside, WHO is gonna kill the elites?