248 comments on DrumBeat: April 17, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
248 comments on DrumBeat: April 17, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I also think what expat is describing is almost the exact definition of Kunstler's psychology of previous investment...
We've embraced our current system by investing so much time, energy, and money. Now even as the realization hits some that this is not going to end well, there's no serious effort to try a different way because we're in so deep... We've simply invested too much into this one "solution" that we just have to make it work (against all logical arguments of why it won't).
"American Way of Life is non-negotiable"...ring a bell??
I don't think I agree with that. Tainter argues that people essentially make rational choices. For many societies, collapse is a choice they make.
We may be "invested" in the system we have, but I would argue that it's an investment of time, energy, and resources, not pyschologically invested. We may be psychologically invested, too, but it's the time and resources that count. We can change our minds. We can't easily change our infrastructure.
Leanan wrote:
Jared Diamond's Collapse pointed out that the choices look like rational ones, but sometimes they are and sometimes not. The choice to "downsize" is rare. There may be a choice to "streamline" though this may produce an unwanted collapse. In the US's case, the choices look rational only according to one model of the real situation (the same model which produces "growth" and "free trade"), but terribly irrational according to many others (e.g., what I would call "prudent equilibrium"). Sometimes people think they are making a choice but actually act in the way their constraints appear to force them to. I see the US in this situation as well, and it is the reason I tend more towards pessimism in these questions. One can consider the discussions following publication 30 years ago of the Club of Rome's report and The Population Bomb. The upshot of that has been clear ever since Malthus (up to a simple renormalisation) yet look at the discussion of it.
ciao,
Bruce
I'm not arguing that the reasoning is rational. Just the results. Call me a societal darwinist.
I think it's pretty clear that the reason more societies do not choose to simplify is because they are in competition with other societies, and simplifying is tantamount to disarming. It's not a coincidence that all of Diamond's sustainable societies were on islands - isolated from the rest of the world.
No matter how this is rationalized, none of this is either reasonable or at all rational.
Vis-a-vis the imperatives of evolution, ecology, and ethics that we are capable of applying decent consideration to, and in this day and age, all this alleged rationalizing (particularly as to our only choice is to compete or disarm), is insane.
It's quite a conundrum.
But you see, in my eyes, America has 'simplified' - it lacks the skilled industrial and agricultural work force it possessed in previous generations, these having been replaced with people who feel that financial engineering has a higher value than actual labor with a tangible result, for example (let's not even get into the 'growth' of the legal profession as another example of productive capacity being displaced).
The thing is, that this simplification from useful skills in a tangible world to what seems in my eyes to abstract constructions increasingly divorced from reality (mortgage brokers servicing customers who can't read the documents they are signing - a sign of increasing complexity, or a step on the long staircase of decline?) is the problem.
I realize this goes somewhat against the grain, but I feel that the U.S. is, metaphorically, well on its way to becoming a monoculture - and that this path was not merely randomly chosen, but was instead the answer to the challenges which the 1970s exposed. Forced and unwise simplification (American housing truly seems to be stapled and glued at this point - this is not a sign of skill or quality) is disguised as a dynamic economic miracle, for example.
I believe the bubble popping will expose more reality than most Americans can actually handle, the same way peak oil will.
And people have a vested interest (as we see here, daily) in their beliefs, long past the point that they are proven wrong in the eyes of others.
America, currently home of the largest trade deficit and the largest financial bubble in human history, feels itself to be number 1 in so many areas. The two I noted are beyond dispute, however, and yet, they are not claimed with pride by Americans. Selling the sizzle of financial engineering, not the reality of a declining manufacturing base - America can probably claim no. 1 status in marketing itself, too.