<A Debate on the Substance and Timing of the Peak of Oil Production and Consumption, Part IThe Oil DrumNatural Gas: how big is the problem?>
<DrumBeat: December 4, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: December 6, 2006>

171 comments on DrumBeat: December 5, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

bart on December 5, 2006 - 2:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree, Peak Oil of Tarzan. When looking for a job, one learns very quickly that specialization is where it's at -- at least in today's economy.

Rob's point is that a whole generation of young men has been conditioned by that pressure; and when they contemplate "peak oil," they respond with doomerism.

I don't think that Rob is judging so much as observing.  

I tend to agree with him. I'm in the older generation (56), and don't feel freaked out by the prospect of peak oil. We will manage. Manual labor and household skills are satisfying in a way that desk jobs aren't. One doesn't need consumer crap and cheap flights to Europe to have a happy, satisfying life.

The good news for men is that we will again be valued for characteristically male skills: moving heavy objects, fixing machines, opening stuck jar lids.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on December 5, 2006 - 3:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
First I think we should point out we are talking about this Energy Bulletin posting (by Rob Hopkins). One of the things he says is:

Although you may disagree with the theory I have set out above, I have found it an interesting way of looking at where the numbing sense of peak oil catastrophism comes from. It is, in the main, a theory most felt and promoted by men.

Well I'm going to disagree vehemently with his theory (but not diss him as a person because it is the theory we are talking about and not its proponent).

There are major differences between the way women think and the way men cognate. If you are not aware of that yet then you are probably from Venus or Mars rather than from Planet Earth.

Women tend to focus their cognitive skills on social interactions rather than on interactions with inanimate objects like computers, cars or oil wells and stuff. If something does not work and you are a sufficiently flirtatious female, it is no great effort to get a dozen geeky engineers to oogle over you as they try to prove they are the "dominant" male capable of solving your latest blue screen problem and thus fathering your children (yeah fat chance --but keep dreaming nerd).

The life experience of most women is that if there is a "technical" geeky problem, some man will come around and fix it. No need to waste cognitive energy worrying about that kind of stuff.

On the other hand, for a geek oriented male (not an AMPOD) the inability to fix the next tech problem means you won't have a chance in hell (as if you ever had one) to mate with the alpha female and pass you genetic code onto the next generation of nerds. Thus it is doom. It is the ultimate catastrophe.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ImSceptical on December 5, 2006 - 5:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And the main reason the world will devolve into Hobbes's "war on all by all".  Remove the competent positive traits [geekinesses?] from the gene pool and all that remains is strong muscles and a vacuum upstairs.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on December 5, 2006 - 3:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The article resonated with me too.  When I found out about PO, I was immediately struck by the disconnect between the requirements of the post-peak world I envisaged and my own capabilities.  For me this merely threw into sharp relief the artificiality of the civilization we have been able to construct with oil and how far away I was from the "real world".  I'm not unhappy with what we've had - I've been good at developing specializations that let me succeed.  I also understand that it's not a personal failing to have been successful in these terms.

I do feel a number of regrets, though.  Specializing for success in the last half century has meant taking on more and more sedentary, cerebral jobs.  This has left guys like me in our mid 50's with too much lifespan left to avoid feeling the effects, but not enough physical capacity left to continue succeeding in the brave new world.  If I was only 20 years younger...

The other regret is that I may not be able to continue caring for my family as effectively as I have, once the requirements begin to change.  I think for many men this is a very disturbing realization.

Like Rob I've wondered why there are so few women in the Peak Oil community.  It could be that since men are inherently problem-solvers, we tend to be more interested than women in seeking out and understanding problems.  The women I've told about the problem all get it right away, but they tend not to obsess about it.  Their reactions vary from "We'll muddle through," to "Don't talk to me about problems, talk to me about solutions," to "This might not be such a bad thing, you know!"

I think on the whole women tend to be more connected to the world around them, and suffer less from mind/body, man/nature dualisms than men do.  Next time I'm coming back as a woman.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on December 5, 2006 - 9:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
When I found out about PO, I was immediately struck by the disconnect between the requirements of the post-peak world I envisaged and my own capabilities.

Yes, but Rob's theory is specific to MEN. He conveniently ignores the fact women are just as useless as men these days.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on December 5, 2006 - 10:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I posted about this article elsewhere and mused, after concluding that I was more PO skilled than its author 30 years ago, that I should practice darning my socks. Then I thought (and wrote): women need to be useful, too!

Doubt many of them would be attracted by our views, though ;)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on December 6, 2006 - 11:35am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
He conveniently ignores the fact women are just as useless as men these days.

I don't think it's as much of an issue for women.  Even in these "liberated" times, females get the message that their place is to be decorative, not necessarily useful. "The average woman would rather be pretty than smart, because the average man can see better than he can think."

Men are the ones who are supposed to take care of their families, be the provider, etc.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on December 6, 2006 - 5:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Men are the ones who are supposed to take care of their families, be the provider, etc.

Yes ... if we continue to accept current culture.
But if there is no oil,
If there is no way to care & provide,

Then you may see an epidemic of men going crazy,
Doing who knows what to those around them.
And then being "Pretty like Paris" (Hilton) instead of smart and swift may not be adaptive in a Darwinian sense.

But don't worry.
We'll "muddle through" that part also when we get to it. :-)

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bart on December 6, 2006 - 2:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The women I've told about the problem all get it right away, but they tend not to obsess about it.  Their reactions vary from "We'll muddle through," to "Don't talk to me about problems, talk to me about solutions," to "This might not be such a bad thing, you know!"
LOL, your first and second quotes were almost exactly what my wife said.

The women I've known to be concerned about peak oil don't get obsessed with it (especially not with the numbers and graphs).  Instead they tend to get involved with food, gardening and community.

If one re-defines Peak Oil to include food, gardening and community, then the mix of the sexes is much more even.

There's something to be said for both approaches.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ImSceptical on December 5, 2006 - 5:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Being upfront when the bullets start flying! -)
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on December 5, 2006 - 9:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bart,

He basically says that if you believe Peak Oil to be a catastrophe, it is because you are useless IT geek with no skills. On the other hand, if you are more optimistic like he is it's because you are more usefull.

Okay, lets apply our critical thinking skills here. (Critical thinking will still be important after Peak Oil, correct?) Here goes:

The fact that modern women are as useless sans petroleum as modern men are seems wholly lost on him. His theory, that men are doomers b/c they realize are useless sans pretorleum is bunk. If that was what is repsonsible for doomerism, you'd have just as many women show up at the PO doom-fests as men b/c modern women are just as useless as modern men.

But I guess we can't expect too much critical thinking or analysis from Rob. He's got sock knitting classes to attend, don't you know?

This is mostly Rob trying to insult and demean people who don't feel the same way he does. Basically a peak oil dick size contest is what he's trying to engage in here.

Personally I've responded to PO with doomerism b/c I follow the money. It's simple: trillions are being spent for oil and oil wars while billions are being spent to get away from oil and oil wars. You do the math.

If you're not freaked out by PO I suspect it's because your brain has simply wired itself to keep the real consequences compartmentalized. (It has to do this or you wouldn't be able to function.) If you were in Baghdad right now, would you not be a bit freaked out by the consequences of PO? Simialrly if you were in Bangladesh, would you not be a bit freaked out by PO's cousin, Climate Change?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bart on December 6, 2006 - 3:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dear AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom,

The problem with Peak Oil is that it's not something that one can solve with arguments or intense reasoning. One can go around and around the same issues to no avail.  

Sometimes it's good to set those things aside for awhile and enjoy the little things in life.  My mother-in-law used to hear me talking for hours with my fiancee on the couch... trying to think things out, plan for this or that contingency.

"You think too much," was her sage advice.

Well, I still think too much and I'm just as obsessed with peak oil in my way as you are in yours. But I've learned from women friends and working people how to slow down and take things one at a time.  Hopefully I'm not such a slave to the "thinking" mode as I once was.  

There's something to be said for knitting socks, long hike, preparing food. They help put things into perspective.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
bart on December 6, 2006 - 5:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dmitry Orlov lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union, and made similar observations to those of Rob Hopkins about how high-achieving males were hard hit:
Slide [27] Certain types of mainstream economic behavior are not prudent on a personal level, and are also counterproductive to bridging the Collapse Gap. Any behavior that might result in continued economic growth and prosperity is counterproductive: the higher you jump, the harder you land. It is traumatic to go from having a big retirement fund to having no retirement fund because of a market crash. It is also traumatic to go from a high income to little or no income. If, on top of that, you have kept yourself incredibly busy, and suddenly have nothing to do, then you will really be in rough shape.

Economic collapse is about the worst possible time for someone to suffer a nervous breakdown, yet this is what often happens. The people who are most at risk psychologically are successful middle-aged men. When their career is suddenly over, their savings are gone, and their property worthless, much of their sense of self-worth is gone as well. They tend to drink themselves to death and commit suicide in disproportionate numbers. Since they tend to be the most experienced and capable people, this is a staggering loss to society.

If the economy, and your place within it, is really important to you, you will be really hurt when it goes away. You can cultivate an attitude of studied indifference, but it has to be more than just a conceit. You have to develop the lifestyle and the habits and the physical stamina to back it up. It takes a lot of creativity and effort to put together a fulfilling existence on the margins of society. After the collapse, these margins may turn out to be some of the best places to live.

Dmitry's presentation, which was originally made to the Petrocollapse conference in New York City last April is now online in document form:
http://energybulletin.net/23259.html

A similar phenomenon occurs among men in retirement. Those who had all their self-worth tied up in their job do poorly in retirement - the death rate is very high.  Those men who found their self-worth elsewhere (knitting socks?) had the easiest transition.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BobCousins on December 6, 2006 - 7:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The fact that modern women are as useless sans petroleum as modern men are seems wholly lost on him.

For as long as women can have babies, they will never regard themselves as useless. That is the fundamental difference. I thought you understood this stuff. Guess I was wrong.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on December 6, 2006 - 2:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In that case Rob's theory should have been "Men can't have babies, that is why they think modern society is doomeed" as oppossed to "Men are useless, that is why they think modern society is doomed."

Anyhoo, it would be more entertaining for him to call somebody like Kunstler "useless" face-to-face in real life as Kunstler has the viciously sarcastic sense of humor and would verbally rip him several new ones large enough you could plant container gardens in them.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
step back on December 6, 2006 - 5:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As long as women can have babies, they will never regard themselves as useless. That is ... fundamental

Who needs women and babies ...

when you are part of an army

of angry men?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on December 5, 2006 - 9:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
and dont forget fightin' fuckin' and drinkin'
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.