Review of What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire
Posted by Prof. Goose on October 28, 2007 - 4:45pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
This review is by Mick Winter (www.DryDipstick.com), the author of Peak Oil Prep: Prepare for Peak Oil, Climate Change and Economic Collapse (www.peakoilprep.com). The What a Way to Go website can be found here.
A two-hour poem of great power and beauty. The story of a personal journey; yet a journey that is also deeply universal. As humanity rushes towards a nexus of catastrophe, is there a world beyond denial and despair? The film suggests the possibility.
"What a Way to Go" is a 123-minute ode to life as it could be, as it should be, as it has been in a distant past, and in some way, as it is now, as rejective of reality as that may be. We, who should be stewards of the earth, have instead tragically become its dominators, bending the rest of life to our will. But there remains the hope that within us are the seeds of wiser people and a better world.
I have seen a number of films on Peak Oil, climate change and the other ills of our society and planet (yes, even Nobel Laureate Al Gore's Oscar-winning "An Inconvenient Truth"), but none has moved me so much as this one. While it does include some facts and figures, it primarily deals with the human psyche—the emotional and spiritual pain experienced by those living in, or victims of, industrially civilized countries. It builds a deep emotional and spiritual connection between the viewer and the planet on which we live, and the fellow creatures of all forms with whom we share life on this planet. It becomes clear that the suffering we experience as humans is shared by the entire biosphere. Because of the beliefs which have entrapped us, we are alienated not only from nature, but from each other and, indeed, from our true internal nature. What we have done to our planet we have also done to ourselves.
I have never seen a film quite like this before. The many brilliantly chosen film snippets—usually archival—are mesmerizing. Somehow using film clips from decades past creates a feeling of distance, connection and immediacy, all at the same time. I can't explain it, but I found their use extremely effective. Despite the often staccato use of the film clips, and the frequent interspersal of talking heads, the film flows smoothly, carrying us along in its grip as it goes. This is largely due to the narrator (writer/director Tim Bennett), whose words are interesting, compelling, and powerful, delivered with a soothing calmness and more than a touch of sad weariness, and because of the superb editing of the film, which according to the credits was done by Bennett and producer Sally Erickson. It is also a tribute to the film's very effective original music score.
"What a Way to Go" is a two-hour poem of great power and beauty. It is the story of a personal journey, yet a journey that is also deeply universal. A journey that encompasses ignorance, awareness, fear, depression, denial, grief and despair. But when denial can no longer be maintained, and grief and despair can no longer be endured, there remain two options. Once is self-destruction; the other action. The narrator chooses action.
The topic of this film is human life, and our survival. "What a Way to Go" addresses many of the major threats to our life as a society which are, as we all know, coming together to form a "perfect storm"—a nexus of catastrophe that could sweep many, if not all of us, into extinction. Peak Oil quickly becomes a simple hors d'oeuvre as the film moves on to climate change, mass extinction, population overshoot, famine, disease, toxins and other threats to civilization.
Interestingly, the film identifies agriculture as the point where trouble first began for the human race. Growing food instead of gathering food became humanity's first truly disruptive technology. The logical outcome of being able to—and needing to—stay in one place was cities, which by their very nature cannot be sustainable. They have no choice but to be dependent on resources from outside their area.
Agriculture appears to have been the point of division, the time when humans began to change their surroundings rather than simply live within them. It was the beginning of our separation from—or at least our perceived separation from—nature. More than 10,000 years later, it can best be expressed by the words of that wise observer of society and human nature, Woody Allen, who has said: "I am at two with nature."
I referred above to "talking heads". A better term would be "talking hearts" or even "talking souls". Although scientists are interviewed, the majority of the commentators in the film are writers, artists, academics and others who demonstrate clearly that our society should give equal time to the creative observers of our society. Some of the better known are Thomas Berry, Jerry Mander, Daniel Quinn, William Catton, Derrick Jensen, Chellis Glendinning, Richard Heinberg (in his role as a generalist and humanist as well as a Peak Oil expert), Richard Manning and Ran Prieur. They and many others offer insightful observations on our society, our plight and our possibilities. They speak with concern, caring and humaneness.
The film could easily be seen as a major bummer. The reality of our planetary situation is grim, and the movie pulls no punches. Depression and despair are expressed, discussed and absolutely not dismissed. Indeed the narrator cautions us toward the end of the film that there will be no happy closing chapter.
But the filmmakers are not without hope. Were they, there would have been no film. They leave us with the recognition that even if we are facing societal death, we can face that death with honor, knowing that we have tried everything we could to right the wrongs that we ourselves have created. If we lose, let that loss be noble. And maybe, just maybe, we might tap into that strength that comes from recognizing that all life on this earth is not just connected, but one. It would be a glorious finish, and even more glorious were we to come out successfully on the other side.
"Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid."
- Basil King [from the film]
My congratulations and thanks to Tim Bennett, Sally Erickson, and to all involved in this film. I intend to buy a number of copies of this film to give to friends. I highly recommend you buy a least one yourself.
Hmm ..... can't afford to buy it to see it, Life At The End of Empire is not proving lucrative for me LOL!
Nice review Mick.
Agreed, it's the best wholistic view of things I've ever seen. It's also crushingly depressing, but don't let that put you off. ;-) A friend of mine helped sponsor a showing of it with the filmmakers last night in Pt. Reyes, CA. He's also throwing another private showing/discussion in the area tomorrow night, which I will attend (mainly to meet the filmmakers and participate in the discussion).
This film is very much along the lines of the emerging "Peak Everything" meme. I encourage all TOD readers to check it out.
--C
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com
Who says everyone feels that pain? It's a personality thing. And I think where one ends up on that spectrum also predicts how likely one is to predict and/or welcome catastrophe.
I saw it yesterday, and while I thought it was great, and lots of new ideas occurred to me while watching, I also had the feeling that a lot of people would find those arguments about spiritual pain etc. quite ridiculous and hippie-like. The denial that is extensively discussed in the film apparently goes to such lengths that plenty of people are perfectly happy to be rich and able to consume like there's no tomorrow. I wouldn't really bother showing this film to any of my relatives for instance, they would just think I had finally lost the little sense I had before...
OTOH, if you're inclined to think things are not well on this Earth, this is definitely worth watching. Frankly I think it could've been a bit shorter, but it is just full of interesting stuff that you don't encounter on a daily basis, not even at TOD! :)
Speaking about that 'spiritual pain' you dismiss so easily.
Let me tell you a true story..then..
I was driving down the two lane blacktop back to my farm..sorta out in the country but at least 6 houses are on my way so its not that isolated...and most of the joining fields are being farmed...
There are a few curves and as I came upon one a pickup passed me going in the opposite direction with a young boy and what looked to be his girlfriend in the seat next to him and she was looking at him with mirth on her face and he appeared to be struck with a smile or smirk..couldn't tell which..
The traffic doesn't go so fast that one can't see faces..
As I rounded the curve that they had passed me the other side of I saw what they had been up to...a possum was slowly dragging what was left of the back of its body towards the side of the road..and some brush there..its back side had been flattened by the pickups tires..it had just happened.
I was going rather slow at the time and it a split second I saw the agony on the face of the possum, remember the glee shown on the girls face as she appeared to be staring at her hero , the young guy who had shown her his driving skills and regard for other flesh..another very gentle creature , who is so shy that if you approach one it will roll up and pretend to be dead..'playing possum'.
I was instantly struck with 'spiritual pain' of the incident and the lifeform which was desperately trying to attain the roadside and the protective brush..and it would then crawl into the brush and spend possibly many hours dying a slow and painful death.
So that to me was a watershed event..the 'spiritual pain' was real and immediate.
I live among nature..my house and barn right next to the woods..my dogs catch and kill small chipmunks and sometimes many moles..but they do that as part of nature..
Does man then kill indiscriminately and consider himself to be 'part of nature'? I don't think so..I consider that truck to be filled with ignorant worthless assholes of the worst sort.
To this day that visage remains with me and will never depart. I have had similiar experiences when I killed a doe and her spike buck when I never needed the meat. After I shot the doe and then shot the spike buck as it stood there, I shot it badly and as it lay on the ground it kept raising its head to look over at the doe..I never hunted deer again after that..I had learned. I administered the death shot with a pistol to its brain. I did it out of mercy but again it doesn't leave me..this remembrance.
I have seen men in trucks ride the countryside with a rifle in the window..and came by my place and idly shot a buzzard out of a tree in my field and continued on ..they were just wanting target practice.
The buzzards and possum clean up the messes we leave on our roads and highways. They can never hurt people ..they are beneficial.
That for me is the reality of what you dismiss..spiritual pain...
I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for all the slaughter of wild forms or life that are occuring minute by minute on our highways and roads..just so we can go faster and not give a shit about what happens either..if they go under our wheels most don't give a damn...some run over turtles just to hear them 'pop'..my brother in law loved to do that...I never speak to the slob..he recently had a massive heart attack and became a vegetable..I figured he might recall how many other lives he took for his glee. One young girl I know of in a car accident he was responsible for. The slug.
airdale-without some spiritual pain how does one know whether they are really in step with life? Or even exist as sentient beings of value? I will kill another life if I need the food desperately or they are attacking me..otherwise I leave nature to its own devices..and I allow NO ONE to hunt on my land. No one.
Hey, I don't personally dismiss that pain, but in a way your post confirmed what I suggested: many people do dismiss it and don't think twice about hurting animals and destroying the environment.
But I'm with you on this one. I refuse to visit a good friend of mine in the country because his wife insists that he kill any viper that strays near their house. Vipers around here are not dangerous, and just like possums and buzzards there, they are actually quite beneficial. And I think they're beautiful. I also love seagulls, even though I don't know anybody else in Helsinki who more than just barely tolerates them. Last spring and early summer I had a chance to watch fledglings grow up near my window, and that was a wonderful experience.
I think you just misunderstood my point, which was that this film is not going to impress people who are not already worried about peak oil, climate change etc. The rest of us will find it quite inspiring.
I think he was replying to me?
Well, my post was more an elaborate, "Speak For Yourself." I don't deny that other people have "spiritual pain". I mean, how could I? I am just suggesting that it is not a generalized human predicament, and that, perhaps, nothing important on a large scale can be obtained from that sort of analysis.
Saw a quote along those lines today:
ChrisN
Bite your tongue! You would quote a giant like Albert Schweitzer in this landscape of drawfs who think they are giants?
Schweitzer did not bow to the forces of nature, and waste away the learning that 4000 years of civilization provided to him. Instead, he took it, he took the tools that are scoffed at and treated like garbage here on this forum, science, art, literature, philosophy, ethics, and medicine, and propeled them into the Heart Of Darkness, into this great "nature" which was devouring human beings who did not know how to contest it, Schweitzer personally not only endorsed civilization, he WAS civilization. To quote such a man, a man of WILL, a man of INTELLECT, a CHRISTIAN MAN in the truest ethical sense, in this place is almost a sacrilage.
By the way, if you didn't notice, I am a fan of Albert Schweitzer, and everything he stood for. He only makes me angry in one way: He so outshines us average slobs that it is embarrassing to think about! :-)
RC
That pickup truck gave that boy authority. He had to demonstrate that he could use it.
Thet rifle gave that man in the truck authority over another life form. He had to demonstrate that he could use it.
As I type this, I have just been given notice from my city that they are unhappy I have recovered some brick and stacked it around some bushes in my yard, behind a fence. They want me to move it to where it can't be seen from the street.
They are unhappy with the desert jade plant I planted all over because of our Southern California water shortage. Even though I have been able to drop my water usage to about 1000 cubic feet per two month billing cycle, they are more concerned that I have left dead leaves around the bushes. I need those leaves there to keep what little water that is in the soil from being boiled off by our hot sun.
I am trying to conserve, but it ain't easy if it isn't what everyone else is doing. How long before I get a complaint that I hang my laundry on a rope in my back yard to dry?
Most of my neighbors cut down the trees on their property years ago. I am the holdout on my block and have several on my property. I love my two big Eucylyptus trees despite the fact they drop lots of branches every time we get a Santa Ana wind blow through. My neighbor nixed his matching pair of trees about five years ago.
Enormous disparity in the income we each live on fuels a raging "keep up with the Jones" thing, whereas if one of us falls behind on our consumption, the "bitty from the city" is called up to issue a "demand to comply" letter.
Although I would LIKE to conserve, its difficult to get permission to do so. As an engineer, I am well aware of the BTU's consumed and carbon dioxide released into our atmosphere to make the brick. That's why I recovered it, as I felt it was too valuable to throw away.
I have reserved sufficient funds to commission a local brick artisan to build me some brickwork with it, but I need to wait for the upcoming recession so I do not compete against everyone else for the artist. The artist will really need the work as well.
But it looks like I will be forced to throw the brick away just because someone else doesn't like seeing it in my yard.
Yup, yet more fuel to make useless haul to the dump. The only upside being getting approval from the bitty from the city. The downside being I won't get my brick planters and the artisan will not get the money I reserved for him.
Yet, others are free to buy cars that won't fit in their driveway, forcing me to walk out in the street to get around them. But if I have bricks stacked in my own yard? Oh, its a terrible eyesore. Its construction materials visible from the street!
Other people can have an old wagon wheel in their front yard, and that's OK. But my stack of brick? NO!
And all sorts of stuff about "trimming" plants. I wonder if its my tomato bushes she's demanding that I remove?
The State may exhort how dire our water crisis is, but they don't have the authority to cause me financial pain like the "bitty from the city" can. Nobody's gonna hold a bitty from the city personally financially responsible for demands she issues to citizens like me to pour water all over the ground to make up for the leaves I removed as per her request.
It seems a lot easier to tell the farmers to make do with less water. Besides if the City needs more money for her to hire her own gardener, they can just raise our water rates again.
I have to go with who has the authority. She does. All the State can do is tell me that I need to conserve. I can see the lakes dry. I can TRY to conserve and do things in a minimal energy use way, but I can not override the authority of the bitty from the city. As a community, we are forced to PAY for someone to butt in and tell us NOT to conserve.
The City CAN and WILL ding my property any assessment they wish.
I know I shouldn't use TOD to vent personal frustration, but please forgive me. I am mad, and feel so damned helpless. It seems every attempt I make to try to save resources is met with "order to comply" from the City demanding I waste them - for mere appearance's sake.
There is no-one at the State or Federal level on my side with any authority to help me stand my ground when it comes to wasting resources. All I am seeing is needless enforced consumption. It takes a lot more than convincing people that there are other ways to live, it takes convincing those who have the authority to demand us to live otherwise. Unfortunately, those guys literally write their own paycheck and don't have the constraints the governed do.
Steve.
Sort of what happened with the dam beavers. :=)
http://www.getipm.com/personal/dam.htm
That's just hilarious, thank you! And the bit about bears defecating in the woods, ROTFLMAO
Thanks. I need something to laugh at.
Still, he is responsible for what the beavers do on his land just as I am responsible for my bushes growing.
I don't want to tangle with City Hall until I find someone yet higher up who will go to bat for me. Someone with the authority to take the settlement right out of their paychecks, just as easy as City Hall can assess my property.
I am just trying to let Nature alone, at least on what I thought was MY property. I recognize every square inch of foliage is busy sequestering carbon from our smoggy air.
I hate like the dickens to kill it just because someone else doesn't like the way it looks. I can't force anyone to get rid of their Hummer because I consider it a resource hog. The City will let them have their Hummer regardless of how much the sight of such conspicuous consumption bothers me, but I can't have my bushes because the sight of my bushes bothers them?
Before people like me can grow gardens, dry our clothes on clotheslines, or stockpile energy intensive building materials for later use, we need to seriously consider how much authority we grant those who can tell us we can't.
I wish I had the authority to make the one who has the authority to force me to cut my bushes down - clean the air in its place. But even the Federal people don't have that kind of power. All they can do is issue advisories.
People like me are quite powerless to do anything about it.
Its been my experience that Nature knows exactly what to do. I am very reticent to interfere.
When I first moved here, it wasn't much of a problem. Rich people moved in and they have the money and connections to change things.
If there is anything that irks me off where I live, its not that I do not have enough money, its that others have way way way too much money - and the ability to force me into their lifestyle.
I don't need much money. I just need people to let me be.
Why do they have such a need to come rattle my cage?
I feel I should be writing letters to the California Department of Agriculture and asking them why they are letting the cities get off scot free on wasting water when they need it for growing food? I feel our city needs to get a few "orders to comply" since they have the gall to hire someone to harass those of us who are trying to conserve and tell us not to.
Someone at the State or Federal level needs to give people like me some teeth so we can bite back and cause economic pain to those keeping us from trying to conserve. Personal economic pain. Pain they can't forward to the community at large.
I was hoping by now, there would be more awareness and appreciation for those conserving so that others may have what I didn't throw away.
How much higher does oil need to go before those in power consider it to have any value?
Steve
You think it's bad now....how would like to live even closer together, and closer still, in the inner city worker slums and common wall massive apartment blocks that Kunstler and the "re densify" fanatics dream of?
How much "freedom" to be different you think you will have in those?
RC
RC,
I think at that point, I would not worry about it anymore, as I would have no outdoor area as "mine".
Already, I fear that the City will find out about the experimental lithium bromide solar absorber I am building in my back yard and make me remove it, and I wouldn't put it past them being they are complaining about the bricks I got for some planters.
The biddie is paid enough by the city she doesn't have to worry about whether or not she will be able to afford enough energy to cool her home. Her lofty salary and secure employment of the city insulates her from the realities of nature. Her needs can be met by increasing tax levies on the rest of us.
As far as the absorber goes, its a prototype, made with four pieces of 4" black iron pipe, but unfortunately it has to be about six feet high to get the gravitic gradient I need to make its gravitic pumps work. The whole thing is designed to run on sunlight, cooling water, and gravity, requiring minimal mechanical energy input. On paper, it works fine, but before I get anyone else involved, I want a working model to get empirical data so I can have some confidence that this actually works, as well as having a live hands-on demo for any partners who I invite to mass produce it. Its my hope this technology can be scaled up to cool shopping malls, as I have seen the mall in my neck of the woods have refrigeration problems in the heat of summer and it was not fun. I shudder at the power draw.
The bricks the biddie is complaining about are for the planters I want to build... I have not completely figured out yet how I need them built as I will be using the planter as an evaporative cooler, using plant's leaves like the "slats" of a conventional cooling tower. It will take 90F water and drop it to 80F or so - but at a pretty good flow rate so I can dump BTU from the condenser to it. I am sure I can find some tropical plants which would just love to have warm water sprinkled over them on hot days. As an added bonus, they will likely give me some fruit as well. The purpose of the planter is to confine the liquid water which I sorely need to recycle back to the condenser heat exchanger.
I flat do not have the money to go rent industrial space to do my tinkering. I am a laid-off engineer who worked at a refinery for the earlier part of my career, and taking care of the absorber that kept our LNG tanks cool was part of my job. I still have a lot of stuff on that old absorber, and I am trying to reconfigure its innards so I can use thermal energy from the sun, rather than steam, to run it.
By now, I am an old hippie longhair - not fit at all for the corporate life. I just want to do my art away from the Dilbert Pointy-Haired-Boss. My art has always been an obsession with me - like sports is to darned near everyone else. All this authority around me is driving me nuts. It is hell to know I can do something about the impending energy crisis, but everyone around me is so concerned with useless trivia - and have legal teeth to force me to waste my resources.
I am almost 60. I am about ready to throw the whole shebang in the trash can and give the City what they demand ... a nice lawn. The city despises an old engineer trying to come up with some way of keeping everyone's house cool on the advent of global warming, but they are willing to pay for someone to hinder me. Such a deal for our tax dollar.
By the time we find out electricity is $50/kwh, its gonna be too late.
Steve
Perhaps you can find an attorney who understands what you're trying to do, who would be willing to write some letters for you pro bono, to get the city off your back and start to educate them about xeriscaping, etc.? Try making some phone calls to the local water authority too, & get a letter of support from them that makes you out to be a model citizen for the rest of your water-wasting neighborhood? You can't wait for somebody to show up and go to bat for you, but if you fight for your right position, I'll bet you find some unlikely allies...
--C
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com
Learn about the law. It's pretty simple and it's all in books. Learn how to draft pleadings on your own. Sue the city. Repeatedly. Claim your rights under the State and Federal Constitutions. (First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment) Look at the case law, cite cases that support your side and tell the court what the differences are in cases that don't support you. Cases that bind the courts where you live: US Supreme Court binds all courts, State Supreme Court binds your state courts (district courts, appeals courts, State Supreme court), State Appeals courts bind State Appeals courts and district courts, and district court decisions (when published) bind themselves.
Get State agencies involved. Become a nightmare for the city: a litigious citizen who knows his/her rights and won't hestitate to defend them. Avoid Common Law "lawyers" and Freeman-types, don't cite the Bible as binding authority, and don't invoke the Great God Jehovah in support of your cause. As time goes on, you will become as practiced in this as any lawyer. Remember, you can serve as your own attorney - you just can't represent anyone else. And if you know any sympathetic attorneys, you can always ask them to review your work...
try these links:
http://www.halt.org/newsletters/12_01_2003.htm
http://www.washlaw.edu/lawcat/
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/
Wow. It sounds like they're totally clueless.
When I was at the Detroit Institute of Arts about 15 years ago, I saw a young couple coming out laughing from a room exhibiting 15th century wooden sculpture, most of it of a religious nature. You could tell they had just done something outrageous. I went in and saw a fresh wad of gum stuck on the nose of one of the sculptures, a 600 year old wooden sculpture. That was a moment of my spiritual pain. Even as a child, such an action would have been unthinkable. I look back and wish I had immediately sought out security and had them confronted with their action. It is the fault of their upbringing. I certainly hope it is not a fault of their generation which would be in their late 30's now. It does show that there are those out there who will act in a way contrary to anything you could imagine possible. Preconcieved notions of what people are capable of, in the post oil world, could be fatal.
"It does show that there are those out there who will act in a way contrary to anything you could imagine possible."
-------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7002627.stm
Jeremiads almost always leave me cold. Unless I've tied on a few or many more than a few. I guess it's the Irish in me.
Grand scale suffering, misery and death are and always have been so integral to the workings of life that we have to be careful with our dirges. i.e. That we don't find ourselves saying, in effect, that life is evil.
Our civilization is more 'one with nature' than most of us lefty environmental types care to realize.
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
The fact that many people take great pleasure in killing and inflicting pain should be worrisome. Humans seem to be run by their subconscious minds (Mr.Hyde) while their intellects (Dr. Jekyll) maintain a modicum of decorum.
Go to a football game and listen to the raving fans, “kill him, murder him, break his bones.” It is a time for their subconscious Mr. Hyde to take the field before being sequestered again in favor of the Dr. Jekyll of polite discourse and social interaction. It's really hard to keep that evil bottled up for too long. A few drinks at the tail-gate party and that evil spirit, Mr. Hyde, can foam and froth at an event conducted solely for his bemusement. At other times Mr. Hyde can show his rage behind the wheel of a car where he can make a fast get-away in his cocoon of steel and glass.
One has to go no further than Iraq to find examples of Mr. Hyde finding perverse joy in humiliating and torturing the enemy – all sides included. Perhaps all it takes to remove the thin veneer of decency is a definite advantage over ones opponent without the fear of repercussion (as with looting). In a battle for life and death Dr. Jekyll can be dispensed with entirely as Mr. Hyde knows exactly what to do.
Many of my acquaintances are like this – their Dr. Jekyll is civil but unwilling to discuss or admit ideas that conflict with their personal pursuit of pleasure and success. It seems that Mr. Hyde lies deep within and prevents Dr. Jekyll from agreeing with or coming to any conclusion that would interfere with Mr. Hyde’s selfish hidden motives. Although I’ve been unwilling to sway my opinion on some issues discussed with Jay Hanson, I do think that he is right that Mr. Hyde usually makes a selfish decision and then Dr. Jekyll is given the task of rationalizing it.
Just as the boy and girl smashed the defenseless opossum for their pleasure without fear of repercussion, today’s nations and corporations are run by Mr. Hydes who smash our world for their pleasure without fear of repercussion from future generations.
My suspicion is what keeps most of us "nice" is that we have something to lose.
I fear we will see way too much Mr. Hyde if the peak oil scenario results in people losing their possessions.
Like you noted, I commonly see alcohol unleashing Mr. Hyde - but thank goodness the alcohol usually has the guy so physically uncoordinated and stupefied that he cannot mechanize his threats. Thank goodness when one is that intoxicated, they don't remember.
What I fear most is the Mr. Hyde driven by hatred, stirred to a rage over losing what was precious to him. Especially if I had anything to do with it.
Steve
The Green Revolution relying on petrochemical btu conversion to food may have sealed the fate of the world.
Coupled with peak oil, natural gas, and maybe even coal?
Our legal project is peripheral to peak oil. But not unrelated.
best
Recommended screening technique for the rest of the population.
I have tried to write my own review of this film and know I could have expressed my feelings no better than the review at DryDipstick. Thanks! The movie felt like it was speaking to me (a city person by the way) on so many levels. Nothing else about peak oil (or related issues) has ever come close to having the effect this did (although End of Suburbia certainly changed my life). And "What a way...", though "depressing," did made me chuckle as well on occasion. When I first saw it in a group, I will say not everyone else found the humor in it in the same places.
For a better sense of my complaint about this sort of thing, take this quote from the review:
This appears to be an attempt to identify the Fall, that through Man's Own Hand He has wrought His destruction in the seeds of His own birth. Except---instead of the awareness of shame and the disobedience against God, what is blamed is human penchant for creativity. For a kind of "logical conclusion" exposition of this sort of thing, a good read is Margaret Atwood's novel Oryx and Crake.
Atwood is ultimately unsympathetic to this analysis of the human predicament, even as she writes a novel of environmental catastrophe---and so am I.
It seems like some people think that we'd have been better off if we had never known agriculture. Well, chances are, most of us would never have existed if we had never known agriculture, and I'm quite unashamed to say that I prefer my existence. Not only that, but I prefer my existence knowing what I know, rather than one where I didn't.
I'm with you and Atwood. Thanks for the book recommendation.
What an utterly circular argument. Had you not existed, neither would your preference, or your shame or lack there-of.
I love the quote someone else was using around here recently: "Too much thinking, too much cleverness on the monkey's part leads it to believe it can come up with rational solutions for what ration itself hath wrought."
For myself, it seems obvious the EARTH would be better off if we'd never developed agriculture - however we did, and so we live with the consequences - invoking God, trying to invest this 'gratitude' towards agriculture for one's existence, is investing far more emotional load into this aspect than the film itself does.
For myself, I think it was inevitable that we developed agriculture, and the consequences are now inevitable, and whatever comes out the otherside will still use agriculture, just hopfully in much greater harmony and balance with the planet.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Funny, I was thinking that the opposing argument was circular. How can you prefer a state in which you would have no preference? Suicide has a coherent logic; without the desire for suicide, regret at one's own existence does not.
I've been lurking off an on for the past year or so, and longer on other peak oil sites, and I'm still not sure that I buy that "ration itself hath wrought" it.
Here's the problem I have with the whole thinking. How can the "EARTH" be better off or worse off? Better and worse are only products of "ration itself." The earth is the same if it's a barren ball of rock or a giant jungle. It certainly doesn't care.
It may be that we face doom. It's increasingly clear to me that, if so, it's the proximate result of current policy-making, considering that we have had ways out for decades. It's not clear to be that our "ration itself hath wrought" our destruction.
The opposing argument is, of course, equally circular, and therefore equally nonsense - if could not be otherwise.
Substitute 'life on Earth' or something - although, I'm not sure that makes much difference to your point. Clearly 'life on Earth' is 'better off' as jungle, than rock - but is this 'better' just a human construct, or an absolute?
I can't answer that, neither can you - because we've only got our humanity from which to perceive the question. I suspect you and I might believe differently on this. The best I can do is bet that intelligent aliens would agree with me that jungle really is better. I can#t offer any evidence to back that up :-)... yet...
This though seems to me obvious and undeniable - allowing for the fact that our very human rationality is evidently rather shortsighted. I'm genuinely curious to hear why this is not clear - what, other than our incredible ability to come up with brilliant solutions, can explain the human-created pressures pushing the earth from jungle in the direction of rock?
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Well, yeah, but from the review, that sounds like the argument that is being made. Furthermore, just to split that hair one more time, I happen to think that the opposing argument is more nonsense than the one I made. From the perspective of existing, I can coherently prefer it at least to a future in which I do not exist, if not to a past in which I never existed. I mean, it's not incoherent to say that I prefer to continue to live.
It's also coherent to say, "I prefer a future in which I do not exist." The answer is suicide. Even, "I prefer a past in which I never existed." The answer is to rectify it as soon as possible, by committing suicide. It's incoherent to say, "I prefer a past in which I never existed, but now that I exist currently, I prefer that." And not at least make a suicide attempt.
But enough of that hair, no? :)
No, it's the same if you substitute "life on Earth". I'm not convinced life on Earth---as a whole---prefers anything. You have to give me an object that can at least express a preference, and some way to evaluate that preference.
However, when some object expresses that, "I prefer that I exist, and my kind exists too," then we can talk about "better off" and "worse off."
It's subjective.
Well, you see, sometimes you get lucky in a Joseph who says, "Let's save seven years worth of corn because we might have seven years worth of drought," and the king listens. And sometimes you get unlucky, and the king doesn't. It's not clear that you can make a general statement about "rationality" and what it, as such, "hath wrought" from that sort of fact.
The problem in evaluating doom is this: we're engaged in a peculiar experiment where someone has decided to implement a kinda-sorta automatic system for resource allocation that does not require/allow anyone to gain a global view. And they've made the claim that this system is the closest approximation to an optimal system to balance growth with problem mitigation.
I don't like this system because I believe it fails certain moral tests on the social justice front, because I am a filthy pinko commie sympathizer. It's not clear yet that they're wrong on the human survival of environmental collapse front.
This may all be splitting hairs, but it's important, I guess, to narrow down what we're talking about.
That's fairly abstracted - I'd rather debate an impression left by the film itself, rather than the review? In another thread a couple of days back, I said I had a problem with the film leaving a mild 'science is bad' flavour - not that the film said any such thing. Nor, I think, did the filmmakers hold to such a belief.
Discussing starting now, referencing the future, resolves the circularity, which I still maintain was identical and equivalent for both cases previously. However 'we are where we are' is a good starting point - and I think, in reality, is the one used by the filmmakers. There's nothing wrong with saying 'how did we get here' - indeed, to do so is critical to make an informed plan for the future - starting here.
To draw attention to, and regret the impact of human agriculture on 'life on Earth', in getting us 'here', is not circular if referenced only in terms of 'now what for the future'. Which I felt was how the film dealt with it.
Again, I'm not at all convinced 'better off' or 'worse off' are dependent in any way on some entity with a capability for preference. I believe these are absolutes (with no need to invoke any God concept) - perhaps it's something to do with information carrying capacity - a forest has more than a rock, that makes it 'better' maybe. A heathy and diverse Earth biosphere likewise is 'better' - with no requirement for a 'preference' that enables 'evaluation' by the likes of us, God, or aliens.
This is philosophy though - and I'm not sure we'll get anywhere?
I don't follow - who has decided? Seems to me no-one decided, just the nett consequence of monkey rationality and selfish genes - but I might be misunderstanding you...
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)