105 comments on Another Inconvenient Truth - A presentation you can download
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
105 comments on Another Inconvenient Truth - A presentation you can download
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
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
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 - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
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
Thata the problem with the gentle aproch, fram the situation as a problem and nothing meaning full will get done. frame the situation as it actually is, a shift in the enviroment needing a aproprite shift in how we live, most likely back to a pre-industrial lifestyle and population. then you make the problem worse.
I don't argue that there is no place for alarmist messages. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists wouldn't have the Doomsday clock if that were the case. But only certain people are going to be effective with this type of message, based on their qualifications and the evidence. More likely is that you and I are simply going to be dismissed as wackos with the message you want to tell people.
The goal is to get people to work together for solutions, not have them cower in fear or panic. You can explain the risks and let them make the decisions on what actions should be taken, a group will usually come up with better answers than individuals anyway.
But if you've given up on working with anybody there's no point in arguing further. Its your choice to make.
You guys and gals can go on making presentations, alarmist or otherwise, until the cows come home and it won't make any difference. Human beings will still keep on consuming nonrenewable resources and over-reproducing just as they have been. The only people with the resouces to mitigate the problem and avoid the worst case scenarios are the wealthy. But most of them are adicted to their lifestyles and making money so probably there's nothing we can do. Try to enjoy yourself while you can.
And tell me how is that different from just giving up?
If everybody thought like that we would still have slavery and segregation, women wouldn't be able to vote, there would be no ozone layer, we would be choking and dying from pollution, no thought given to addressing climate change, etc...
I think it is wrong it say that the leadership is unresponsive to the citizens. Quite the opposite in fact, they usually like to be re-elected. If we can reach enough of the constituency and educate them there is hope.
Therefore I reject the suggestion that the nature of the presentation is irrelevant. The opposite is true - it should be geared to reach as many people as possible.
Clint
Your underlying assumption is that the situation is salvageable, that civilization can be "saved" by actions ranging from mild to extreme. Consider for one moment the hypothetical case in which civilization cannot be saved at all, under any circumstance. How would that change your response?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Greyzone,
Thanks for responding. Please forgive me if I ramble a bit, I will have to think out loud here. This is not my underlying assumption. I would adjust my plans and expectations based on current conditions. If the social structure, communication, and transportation disintegrates then obviously I will be limited to working with people who are close to me. My underlying assumption is that it is better to work together than work alone, humans are social creatures and groups are more effective than individuals.
However, as long as we have the benefits in communication, structured society, and transportation we should avail ourselves of them. I do not think so much of myself that I have the truth of what the future holds. I do not discount any possibility entirely, although I think some outcomes are more probable than others.
I would agree that if everyone threw up their hands and did nothing to correct the situation we will be in for some serious problems. But I don't expect this to be the case.
More fundamental perhaps is whether I believe we should try to save civilization. I have read Azimov too, and can understand the idea of controlled collapse. I have read Richard Duncan's Olduvai theory and understand the premise of energy shortages giving rise to a collapse of civilization. I can understand the risks that complexity and resource depletion bring. I can understand overpopulation and carrying capacity. I can understand people's frustration at society for not reflecting their Values.
But what I don't understand is the idea that we shouldn't go down fighting. We should work together to achieve the best possible outcome.
[edited to correct spelling and indicate my awareness of other risks]
Clint
At this point I would recommend listening to music. One of my favorites on this subject is "Two cents worth" by Kansas on their Masque album.
But what I don't understand is the idea that we shouldn't go down fighting. We should work together to achieve the best possible outcome.
Clint,
I agree with you absolutely. The incredibly defeatist attitude expressed my so many posters on TOD is very frustrating to me. Look at the situation in Bolivia where massive unemployment and economic misery for the masses have existed for many years, and instead of the bringing about a fascist dictatorship or a civil war, widespread civil disobedience has brought about genuine social and political change. Whether or not a truly effective democratic, cooperative form of economic production can be achieved there or elsewhere remains to be seen. But if we simply throw up our hands and assume that human being are zombie morons and therefore refuse to think about and discuss the kinds of social changes needed, then a small chance of intelligent action becomes exactly zero.
Roger
[deleted]
Roger,
Thanks for your support. I am hoping to expose this way of thinking for what it is.
Clint
that civilization can be "saved"
What "we" have "grown up with" as "civilization" will be "gone".
The end points seem to be an environment where humans can still be viable on this planet.
OK Nostradamus, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'll take it for what it's worth.
Clint
I am not optimistic we're going to do much of anything. I'm also in favor of telling people, as quickly as possible, about the seriousness of this situation, because the strategies we've employed in the past for "changing minds" have often been really very long-term, and I'm of the belief that's not a luxury we have right now.
However, as somebody who basically feels we're f*cked, I don't mind other people taking other strategies and trying as well because, hell, maybe something they'll do will work.
I don't understand the cheerier attitude of "everything will be ok 'if only' or 'when we' do [this or that] because I don't see much evidence we're about to really do [this or that] in almost every case it's presented.
Rather than EVER using the word "solution" about peak oil, I use mitigation.
"What is the solution for air?" or "What is the solution for rocks?" makes about as much sense to me.
Having been an "activist" off and on for 30 years, I also know what beating my head against a wall that is not about to crumble feels like. People should do what they feel they have to, it's good for something that makes them feel useful, but I worry if they don't approach it with an honest assessment of how likely they are to succeed, they're maybe not doing themselves a good service.
I know people who are chronic overachievers with their personal energy, underachievers in what it's accomplished, but they seem to be able to pound their head against the wall a lot better and longer than I am able to do.
If we who are marginalized by those calling us "doomers" are wrong (and I'm not a perfect Kinsey 6 on the doomer scale, probably somewhat bi-fatalist), I know I'm glad to be wrong.
Dennis,
Thank you for a thoughtful response. I agree with the use of the word 'mitigation' rather than 'solution'.
I am not saying that "everything will be OK".
What I am saying is that the constant barrage of hopelessness and despair is damaging our effectiveness.
Clint
Thanks, Clint,
People somehow need to deal with their emotions about this (here I go sounding like a pop psychologist; rest assured I don't watch Doctor Phil). I imagine the therapy part of TOD is equally as important to a lot of the regular posters/readers here as is the information.
Since everybody has a different idea of how this will play out and/or how quickly descent will happen, it is not at all surprising that people end up with differing opinions on what information is most important and what will be the most effective means of getting "there." I'm not convinced either approach is really doing much. I've learned a lot about that bugaboo, "human nature," I apparently never needed to know before I learned about peak oil.
I go back and forth on how much and how soon to tell people more of "the full story" as I see it. I really do try to preface even the bad news with "there is likely to be a problem with..." or "what this probably (or "could") means..." when talking to people who have never before heard any of this "news."
Several years ago I was more blunt about all the potential ramifications, maybe mostly because they were new to me and I don't think I'd really accepted the impact of a lot of all it. Also this was with people I tended to already know. Well, they've all heard the spiel by now, and honestly most of them accept it, even when they do go back into denial as deeply as they can about it.
I think just because others may be sending out a barrage of hopelessness or despair (something I've done too) I don't know how it really "damages our effectiveness" since I'm not sure either side has been very effective at this point in changing anything. It is possible to somehow manage to accept both points of view, and argue calmly about the "what if's" or "what abouts" that may or may not put a dent in our own personal fantasies of what the future really will hold.
Many of us will plod on doing whatever we can to be as effective as we might considering the circumstances. The civic approach makes sense for some people (something I've been involved with, though not because I expected much if anything from it to really happen), and the survivalist mentality makes sense on a lot of levels. Relocalization is a great idea, but sometimes I think it's a bit self-centered as a cure-all approach that I hear when we're dealing with something that really does go further than our own back yards.
Sounds wishy-washy, but for now I know I don't hold any answers. So I say go for it however you have to. Whine when you need to. Talk to clueless Presidential candidates if you can. And maybe somewhere it will do some good. Let's hope so.
Oh, and most importantly, occasionally take a break from TEOTWAWKI, at least for now.
Thanks Dennis,
I appreciate your viewpoint, I certainly cannot claim to have your experience. I have had some training in communications though, and what I meant was that people are put off when they hear the end of civilization is coming and there is nothing they can do about it. It isn't helpful in gaining new supporters. Sorry that I didn't that make that clear, I had to rush off to work this morning.
I can deal with hearing this, and I agree that the more time goes by with nothing being done the more likely this is. But I know that we lose credibility when this is tossed around as casually as it is here. I suspect that the ones responsible for most of it don't have nearly your years or your experience, by the way.
What I take offense to is being told it is "a false hope" when I try to do something positive or that the only course of action is to "save yourself". I have not been posting on TOD very long, and this is how I was greeted. I am a long time reader though, and gave it a pass at first. But I am becoming of the opinion that this type of behavior needs to be called out. You are obviously not one of these people either, and have more wisdom than they do. And as for me becoming a survivalist, I have a family and am stuck working in my community. My wife dismisses concerns of TEOTWAWKI even though she reads nothing, because that is just how she is. And unfortunately so are many others. She thinks we'll all be driving electric cars. I do not. I try to be as realistic as possible, and we may not be so far apart in what we expect the future to hold.
Thus my opinion is that people should be motivated to action, not slammed for trying to do something.
I appreciate you sharing your frustration with working the civic approach, this is a constructive exchange of information and something can be learned from your experience. I hope I have better luck with it, but I'm not optimistic either. I just have to try.
I hope to talk you again sometime, I think this thread is getting pretty squeezed.
Clint
Rather than EVER using the word "solution" about peak oil, I use mitigation.
If by a “solution to peak oil” you mean an alternate energy source which would allow the stock market to go on rising for centuries into the future, of course there is no solution. Suppose that someone announced tomorrow that they had developed a low cost cold fusion process so that you could put a fusion generator into your automobile and let your grandchildren worry about refueling. Such a development would not absolve us from the necessity of coming to terms with the finite nature of the earth’s resources, although it would delay the day of ecological reckoning for a while. Peak oil or no peak oil our current global economic system is unsustainable in the long term (not to mention exploitive and unjust even in the short term), and the solutions that we need to seek require fundamental social and political change, not just clever engineering. I agree that it is unlikely that any serious transformation of the economic system will take place until a significant majority of people in the developed world understand that the current system is going to fail to provide them with material security. Many doomers maintain that once such a point is reached it will be too late to take effective action, so that chaos and war will be the only result of the widespread realization of economic failure. While I agree that a large degree of social chaos and violence will probably accompany the downfall the current global economic system, I do not believe that these negative outcomes will be the only results of that downfall. New systems of economic production and social organization will emerge and evolve rapidly. If we have any hope that these system will be democratic and cooperative rather than authoritarian and repressive, it behooves us to spend time thinking about what kinds of social institutions will be conducive the creation and maintenance of sustainable community wealth rather than to the competitive accumulation of private wealth.