Endings aren't always happy
Posted by Heading Out on November 20, 2007 - 10:59am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: drought, georgia, Mega-disasters, oil [list all tags]
This was the week that the History Channel aired the “Mega-disasters – Oil” program, which, in the best part of an hour could only briefly skirt all the different arguments that we discuss here, leading, in their case, to the conclusion that we are possibly heading towards the Mega-disaster of the title. But, given the speed of the story, and a little artistic license in dealing with a possible future, it left me wondering over a question. Tom Engelhardt in his Tom Dispatch of November 15, raises a similar question over the question of the current droughts that are developing about the country. In its simplest form the question is “What happens when it doesn’t get better?”
When the networks have put on the fictionalized reviews of the future oil shocks there has usually been a savior hanging around in the wings. In the first “Oil Shock”, for example, it was the Russians who sent a couple of tankers our way. Somehow I don’t think that scenario is now likely to play out, nor will it solve the problem. And while prayer is being tried in Georgia (as Tom notes) if we are now in a different climate mode than we were fifty years ago, we may, as I noted in an earlier post , be heading for droughts that will last for many decades. But it is the oil future that, despite the beginnings of MSM attention, is still likely to happen faster and more pervasively that I suspect most of us anticipate.
There are a growing number of “canaries in our coal mine,” that are showing the signs of distress that Leanan has caught over this past week; the continuing supply problems in North Dakota , and there may now be possible supply problems for Scotland , though these are merely indicative of problems that the Michigan notes the rest of the world is starting to see.
The list of countries that are now facing fuel, gasoline, diesel, oil, and other supply problems gets longer by the day. A few countries facing such issues include (in no particular order): Zimbabwe, Jamaica, China, Argentina, Ghana, Malaysia, Uganda, Trinadad & Tobago, Australia, Rwanda, Iraq, Kenya, Burma, India, Bangladesh, Niger, Nepal, Bolivia, and the Philippines. Some of these are simply have rising prices, or trouble getting diesel to needed locations. Others are being priced out of the market.
In discussions of the problems of oil supply fluctuations we read in the discussion of how the odd cargo or two of crude changing its destination from China to California, or back, is starting to have a possible impact beyond just an adjustment to a short-term trade opportunity. We have, I fear, in short, already arrived in the period where the impacts of the supply shortage are going to have an increasing impact on society. And where, as was discussed at the ASPO Meeting in Houston, political considerations have the power and influence that they would lack if oil retained true fungibility. Saudi Arabia may indeed have a million or more barrels of oil still, as they say, in reserve. But if, as seems likely, this is merely the heavier crudes of Safaniyah and Manifa, that will become available to the market only after 2009, when the KSA refinery to deal with these comes on stream, then there is, perhaps a little smoke over the mirror. The question then arises if, when that supply does become evident, whether there will be an increase in exports that it will possibly allow. The current evidence suggests that the increase may well not appear. And that brings back the question “and what happens then?”
The History Channel followed the Megadisaster story with a Modern Marvels episode dealing with renewable fuels, and extrapolating from current successful projects, into solutions that have the potential to help solve the coming problem. But there is not as much successful progress, or investment to make the answers come quickly, as you might get from the upbeat message of most of the program. Optimistic projections just keep bumping up against current economic realities. (And even my dentist had, un-coached, disparaging things to say about ethanol yesterday as he repaired a more personal problem).
When we read stories, or comments by some of those trying to bring attention to the problem, quotations along the lines of “a shortfall of 10 mbd by 2020” are the ways in which the problem is defined. But we aren’t going to roll out of bed, one morning that year, and suddenly find the oil has gone. Much before then the gap between effective supply and the growing demand at an acceptable price will have made its presence felt. It is already happening, but we are palliated by the “answers” that renewable supplies are rushing to our door.
The problem however is that the scales are wrong. New supplies of energy are as much focused on electrical supply and do not recognize that you can’t tell millions of your people that they should aspire to the cars and lifestyles of America, and then curtail their supplies of gasoline and diesel, after they have bought the car. Social unrest is a likely consequence of such moves, and yet, where will the oil come from to stop such an action?
In a recent column in the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson would have you believe that we still have time to solve the problem. All we have to do is:
Raise fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks; gradually increase the gas tax (possibly offset with tax cuts) to induce people to buy those vehicles; expand oil and natural gas production in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These steps would, with time, temper the power of oil producers while also checking greenhouse gases. But many liberals, conservatives and environmentalists oppose parts of a sensible compromise. The stalemate hurts mainly us.
. Would that it were that easy or that possible! We still remain enamored of the few favored technologies – despite my dentist corn ethanol remains a favored solution (and despite the ghastly economics, ethanol from switchgrass is still seen in the press to be an imminent answer). We quarrel about how little this answer or that will really help, not wanting to face the fact that we will need them all in as much as they can produce over the next couple decades, and beyond.
It’s that vision thing again. Pat folk on the head, tell them that isn’t going to be that bad, and they’ll go to sleep happy, not feeling the need to plan for the reality of tomorrow.
Richarson Gill’s book on The Great Maya Droughts , begins:
Millions of people died, and until now, no one knew why. The devastation is almost impossible for us today to understand. One by one, and by the millions, the people died of starvation and thirst. They died in their beds, in the plazas, in the streets, and on the roads. Their corpses, for the most part, lay unburied and were eaten by the vultures and varmints who entered the house to eat the bodies of people who didn’t die in the open.There was nothing they could do. There was nowhere they could go. Their whole world, as they knew it, was in the throes of a burning, searing, brutal drought. Their fields and woods were paper dry and on fire. The smell of smoke was everywhere. There was nothing to eat. Their water reservoirs were depleted, and there was nothing to drink.
And from Tom Dispatch::
And then what exactly can we expect? If the southeastern drought is already off the charts in Georgia, then, whether it's 80 days or 800 days, isn't there a possibility that Atlanta may one day in the not-so-distant future be without water? And what then?
Okay, they're trucking water into waterless Orme, Tennessee, but the town's mayor, Tony Reames, put the matter well, worrying about Atlanta. "We can survive. We're 145 people but you've got 4.5 million there. What are they going to do?"
And that is the great concern. We will sit too long complacent in our condition, expecting that someone will take care of this. But when, unless things get worse faster than most expect, it will occur in the next Presidential term, rather than this one, then it is far to distant to worry about – I mean it is not as though it is next year is it ? (Sorry! Couldn’t resist)
In his well-referenced book, Gill makes the case that, as society advances, so more advanced levels require greater levels of energy per capita. Historically the energy came from access to more food and water, and thus the growth of Empires. But, when that energy supply is cut off due to prolonged drought, then the same correlation leads to the consequent collapse of the society. And this leads to a reply to Burgundy who asks where to look to find where conditions might predict what may be coming, it makes more sense to look at the beginning of the Medieval Warming Period, rather than the end – so you may want to go back to around 900 AD or so, rather than the 14th Century.
HO,
I wouldn't be honest unless I said the only message you seemed to be sending is "we're all freaking doomed". (sorry Mogambo)
I went to a birthday party for one of my girl's friends. All the parents are friends, and I have broached PO with them in the past, but I never push it.
I was in an odd mood and we discussed subprime, a bit of energy crisis, and GW. Everyone seemed to agree they were big problems, but the sense I got from all of them was...what can I do about it? Resignation! Is this a new step...skip acceptance...go straight to resignation?
Sure, resignation could be another form of denial, but it almost seems to be a hybrid when people clearly admit the problem.
As I am leaving, one of the husbands announces he wants get a new Audi sports car...
*sigh*
Peak, judging from the experience of the Easter Islanders, Classic Maya, and Anasazi - yes, sometimes most the folks they knew were all freaking doomed.
I've recently asked myself "What's the point in trying to inform people who don't have the resources to prepare effectively in the time remaining? Should they spend their last good years frightened and depressed?" It could be that the guy wanting to buy the Audi has the right response for his situation: he's so deeply in debt he might as well enjoy himself till TSHTF.
In the 70's I thought I could Save The World; in my humility I now know I'll be doing good if I save a few family members.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
The history of peaking and collapsing societies suggests it is usually a long drawn out process that people only seem vaguely aware of. In many ways the USA has been declining since the 1970s when local oil production peaked. Since then the rise of the middle class has reversed, access to education and health care has deteriorated, civil liberties etc (only partly offset by rising technology).
There is a massive amount of waste in the west still to be trimmed down (ie eating grains rather than running feedlots, and multihousing/car-sharing not because we feel guilty but because there is no other choice). Perhaps having 10 or 20 million barrels per day below peak production wont be as crushing as we imagine. We would have already been through 5 and 1 million per day less. In the beginning we will still be arguing if it is a temporary dip or not. By the time we are certain it is a permanent downward trend we will be a few years past the idea of being shocked by it. Changing prices would have already started to change everyone's economic priorities.
There are two potential black swans to negotiate though. The first is the unwinding of the financial system that could lead to short term distortions in demand and trade relationships. The second is global warming crossing a threshold. The most immediate risk there is declining industrial activity leading to a rapid decrease in particulate pollution, loss of global dimming, and getting the full impact of greenhouse gas pollution over a very short period. Together these could be the one-two punch that causes the wholesale doom that some of us like to imagine.
It does seem resonable to think that the world can and will adjust to less oil for a few years. The question is: to what degree will the global economy be able to support a slow decline in oil?
to what degree will the global economy be able to support a slow decline in oil?
Various firms will let the air outta the bubble by going bankrupt.
Hopefully the air going out won't result in violent reactions.
I hadn't considered the affect of global dimming due to industrial activity. Thanks for the insight.
We pick up about 4.1 watts/M^2 due to GHG forcings and we lose about 2.0 watts/M^2 due to reflection of sunlight, mostly from sulfate aerosols caused by dirty diesel.
Looks like those prayers have been answered by the increasing likelyhood of a peak or plateau in world oil production. Finally, emissions will begin to subside by geologic necessity, and alternatives will begin to kick in. Here is the DOE's strategy for replacing the automobile fleet with hydrogen-fuel cell vehicles by the year 2020. The hydrogen will come from very high temperature helium-gas cooled fast spectrum reactors. These reactors utilize uranium over 100 times as efficiently as current reactors, and will be fueled by nuclear waste from current LWR reactors. Uranium is an abundent, abiotic mineral in the earth's crust, and exists in abundance even in seawater.
http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/genIvFastReactorRptToCongressDec2006.pdf
Look, I don't want to upset any of the doomers here, but this is supposed to be a "discussions about energy and our future" site, not dieoff.com
It's far, far, cheaper to build fast reactors using enriched uranium. The accidental pollution cost of attempting to use old, radioactive, PWR fuel rods is horrendous. The financial cost is almost as bad as the security issues.
Specify helium and you run into availability issues. Argon is a byproduct of nitrogen fixation plants. We aren't going to run out of argon. Helium leaks into and out of everything. And if you are running a fast neutron reactor, thermal absorbtion is not a significant factor for gas coolant. Helium gas does have a lower viscosity and that reduces pumping power.
The good news is that the Chinese government will build sensible systems. They don't care what the political types in America and France will back. If we want to do something dumb, that's our decision.
Do you have any stats to back up these dubious claims?
I have had this kind of experience (especially among the crowd from the suburbs). It really is a downer and people don't really want to talk about it, beyond smalltalk type stuff, then move on quickly. It can really be a bit socially isolating when you bring these kinds of things up, you feel like you're living on a different planet from these people.
I recall having a similar feeling at a wedding reception. Everyone was so happy and excited. I was stuck thinking about the possibility of a rapid collapse in the near future. I wanted to say "WAKE UP!" It was a rather gloom evening to say the least.
PeakTO, don't despair too much. You are making progress. The husband who wants to get a new Audi Sports Car may be further along than you think.
My expertese is not in geology, or economics, or geo-politics, but in theology, which is a fancy word for God talk. I am an Anglican Priest of orthodox persuasion and I've dealt over the years with many people in grief. As Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross pointed a long time ago, grief, i.e. coming to terms with loss, is a multi-stage process. There is denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance. The process is anything but linear or straight-forward. People will bounce among the various stages and may even reach acceptance quickly, only to find themselves back in anger or bargaining sparked by a seemingly innocuous trigger.
Another observation: a crisis of grief is always made worse when a person is undergoing a personal struggle with their beliefs. Part of the problem with conveying the urgency of the PO message is that we are trying to convince people to prepare for the end of the world as they know it. Like it or not, oil is the life blood of the western world's obsession with material well being. This monstrous shibboleth of economic and commercial enterprise built on cheap energy is the foundation of our hopes, our dreams, and yes, our salvation. In other words, it has all the attributes of a god and we worship it with all our minds, souls, and bodies. Our highways are pilgrimage routes, our cars are our sanctuaries and temples, our pension funds are our ticket to an after-life, and our mobility is our freedom from bondage.
I suspect that Buddy who wants the Audi sports car is seeking sanctuary from facing "end times". Moreover, it is a great bargaining chip: if he can appease the gods by getting the best they can offer, he may be able to stem off their wrath and judgment.
PeakTo, you've moved him from outright denial to quasi-bargaining. That's a step forward. At least he didn't leave the party peeved off.
Potentially, what awaits us is not mere economic collapse but spiritual catastrophe as well. The annals of history don't bode well in this department. The dark night of the soul, even when it produces later peace and strength, is never easy. For cultures, it tends to bring out the worst demons in people and once they're loose, much mayhem.
The only example in nature of a living thing that increases exponentially without restraint is cancer. Suffering is inevitable for its host body. Remission occurs when the tumor shrinks. This may be the silver lining to the PO cloud. More and more oil, year after year, is neither good nor healthy. Explained this way – and I am sure there are other and better analogies that can be used – people can be moved from quasi-bargaining to quasi-acceptance.
BTW, keep up the good work.
Loved that, Zadok!
Have you given your Peak Oil sermon yet? If not please do.
Zadoc,
I'm a high church Episcopalian . As you know. Anglicans are the people for whom they invented the term White Anglo Saxon Protestant to describe, And my cousin was a personal assistant for Kubler-Ross for about 10 years.
Its amazing how well she nailed the processes of grief. But its one of the biggest fallacies of our civilisation to think that because we can describe something, to name it that we therefore control it, that knowing the name gives us power over the situation. Its Adam's power of naming and one of the great things that separates us from the rest of the world. And its also one of the principles of Witchcraft
that having something's true name gives us power.
Just yesterday with the Wall Street Journal thread we let the WSJ authors stir a few of those snakes because they would like to describe us as a cult. The situation may be uncontrollable but we're less powerful than they if they can describe us with a few deroguetory stereotypes. That helps keep that fiction of control alive for our ego's benefit as well as theirs.In shorter words, its another game because if we can reduce the whole thing to a game we have an illusion of control.
I'm a minority around here, I really do try to follow a spiritual path. At least 2/3rds of the folks here are without religeon but are very fine and moral people. I think they are making a mistake because theology and philosophy represent how people have tried to represent their relations with the universe for several thousand years. Its a pity to throw away all kinds of info, ancient people were just as smart as we are. And its also inconvertable truth that more evil has been done in the name of God than any other excuse. The war in Iraq is a threeway religeous crusade, including all the born-again Christians in our military and mercenaries.
My spirituality describes a path rather than a goal, and I try to live and let live about these matters and I'm in a distinct minority. I believe that we don't own the natural world, but intead should be stewards-protectors-that we have a duty to protect it and pass the world on better than we received it. And, most importantly, to act with love for the world and its people. The rest, I don't know, sacrifice always sounded barbaric and if we didn't start out with a god by now we have created them.Bob Ebersole
Hello,
This is one discussion I was not expecting on TOD.
Bob, you say :
I think they are making a mistake because theology and philosophy represent...
Why do you think that if someone is not religious, that person is not interested in philosophy?
I am not religious, but philosophy has always drawn me. Discussions on morality interest me as well.
Could you elaborate a bit?
Ciao,
FB
Bob,
I agree with FB. Just because one doesn't have religion, doesn't have theology, does not mean one can't have a very deep philosophical relationship with {reality/existence/life}
I think this is a mistake religious people make all too often, to believe the nonreligious are somehow, by definition, philosophically poorer.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Philosophy should stand on it's own as an autonomous branch of knowledge. I think it was Mortimer J. Adler who wrote before the age of enlightenment that philosphy was the poor handmaiden of religion (and wrongly so, he explains further on in his book "the 4 dimensions of philosophy").
yup - i find the mistake tedious too
i usually find the opposite
most religious people i run into are very philosophically poor relying more on received dogma than a personally thought through consistent philosophy
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered
Theology gives answers that may never be questioned
Excellent!
"Existence has no given significance. This precisely is what makes our situation so interesting." Ed Abbey
Well that's Christian theology, but "Jewish theology" if such a thing can be said to exist at all, is almost entirely questions and process, not answers. And Buddhist "theology" is an entirely different manner. And Native American theology is another matter. In fact you might want to limit that statement to "Christianity" and perhaps "Islam".
FB, Don't know if this helps but I have recently come to agree with Bob's position. However in looking back I can see clearly that I always worshiped something and before deciding on a more spiritual path my religion was science and rationality. I still love science and what it can show me about the physical universe but for me there is a whole other deeper side of my being that seems to be addressed by religion or spirituality. Of course I'm no fundamentalist either and I know that many religions are filled with both corrupted messages and messengers, but I view the core message that is transmitted by them as THE message that fully addresses man. So I agree with Bob that those who ignore this message are losing out on tremendous knowledge and truth.
Hello Roamer,
This is a very delicate discussion. I like TOD and the people around here quite a bit and have no intention (or desire) to hurt any feelings, so could we simply say that religion appeals to your yearning for meaning (i.e. what addresses man), but that other, non-religious people can find meaning and value outside of religion?
To suggest that those non-religious people "are losing out on tremendous knowledge and truth" strikes me as an extraordinary statement. Dare I say I find it insensitive?
Sincerely,
FB
Hello FB,
You are right it is a delicate discussion and I feel like I really miscommunicated and probably should learn to refrain from this type of discussion when in the future, I do however want to set the record straight since I got the impression you think I'm a cruel fundamentalist. When I look at my statement of losing out on knowledge and truth is a bit insensitive. I also didn't mean to imply that those who don't practice religion are missing out on meaning, not in the least. I guess what I meant by meaning is contentment, or peace or joy and I know people can find this in many areas.
My filter on religion may be pretty wacky and far from the normal, but I sort of see it as the collective concious venture for discovering internal concious truths. I especially view many of the eastern religions like buddhism in this light. As such I think some of the most brilliant people to have lived on this planet have participated in this tradition. I view the teachings of the Buddha, Jesus, John of the Cross and other mystics and saints as an opporuntity to learn a few thing about the interior of my conciousness. In partciular I enjoy the experience of meditation. The catch is that I would not have a clue how to go about experiencing these states without their instructions. I think of those people as the Einsteins and Newtons of the spiritual world. I know darn well that there is not a chance in heck that I'd discover either F=ma or Einsteins theory of relativity, but I still try to understand and still appreciate their work very much. I know scientifically speaking I'd be missing out if I ignored their work and I feel the same about those spiritual giants I mentioned.
We have a little discussion on religion and philosophy here. The problem is that making a choice to have a little spiritual discipline gets confused in our society with the religious meme-if you don't believe the way I want you to believe you are going to hell and I'm going to help you get there. In other words, its very dangerous at times.
The great current examples of this meme in our current world are easily seen. Osama Ben Laden and George W. Bush are both very happy men and convinced that their models pf the world and doing God's will are right. And I'm convinced they are deluded and dangerous.
Bob Ebersole
Careful now, sir, or you'll let out the big secret :-)
Religions are like the little CAFE standard stickers, while actual mileage depends on how the vehicle is operated. If I'm humble, mindful of where I'm going, and I wave others in who are trying to merge I can get near the 36 mpg my window sticker had. If I've got the "its all about me" hammer down climbing I-70 west out of Denver because I think I might get lucky with that cute attendant at the Indian Springs Resort? I'll lose a third of my supposed benefit right off the bat, and if the troopers don't get me the midlife crisis police will :-(
This is at once an interesting thread and at the same time dangerous and inappropriate, because there is no common shared definition for certain English words, despite the fact that they're in the dictionary. Conservative? Liberal? Totally poisoned by the likes of that pervert Limbaugh. God? No such being exists in my book, and if there were I think everyone who believed in such things ought to be scared white, 'cause we are not playing nice, not any of us ...
Economists can be considered priests of the religion of the free market.
Bob,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments especially pointing out that we "don't own the natural world, but instead should be stewards-protectors." The good news we offer, and hopefully try to live out, is to "act with love for the world and its people."
May help to answer why you and I are maverick enough to post on PO despite, or perhaps b/c, of our WASPish establishment baggage. The writing is on the wall, and if life is a journey and not a destination, then it is our role to chuck the weight that bears us down and thereby limits our travel. We are called to speak out.
Speaking out, and this goes for all who offer their insights and wisdom, is always dangerous. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the prophets were never popular. Jesus paid the price for being so outspoken. From a philosophical vantage, Socrates paid the same penalty.
I mentioned the work of Dr. Kubler-Ross for a couple of reasons: a) her work is well known, and b) she does provide guide-posts on the phenomenon of grief. As anyone in the "caring professions" will tell you grief is messy. There is a mountain of literature on the subject. Yet, the moment any of us are presumptuous enough to think we have it all figured out, whamo, someone or something comes along to prove us wrong.
I fully 100% agree with your assessment of naming. If the western world has one egregious sin it is the pride, dare say hubris, of assuming our world can be dissected, categorized, and pigeonholed into nice little slots and named. Naming gives the illusion of control. Gone is any mystery and any intrinsic value of just being. It also leads us into the temptation to shame and blame when we discover, as inevitably we will, that the illusion does not hold. Sticks and stones will break bones, but it is a lie that names never hurt. Too many graveyards hold the untimely bones or ashes of people named "sub-human", "undesirable", or "not one of us."
Also, names often limit healthy debate since one party or another will be forced on the defensive to disqualify what is implied in the all-too-handy label. A cautionary note: these are the serpents that can creep into unexpected places, including our own rhetoric when trying to prove a point.
The war in Iraq saddens me deeply. As you say, it is seen as a three-way crusade and there is a common impression that it is a religious battle. That's unfortunate. More so, b/c it's an observation that lacks validity and accuracy.
Notwithstanding the bombastic manipulation of leadership, all, and I mean all the religions of the book appeal to highest principles and sentiments of the human condition. To draw from the prophet Micah, many mouth the words and even believe that "they love kindness" and "do justice". What is often overlooked is the last and important part, "to walk humbly with your God." A healthy dose of humility goes a long way to ease the pain we inflict on one another.
The war in Iraq, like all wars in human history, is the result of the lesser qualities of the human condition: pride, greed, anger, lust, envy, sloth, and gluttony. Regardless of what one believes, the seven deadlies are called deadly for a reason.
One of the pieces missing from most media and academic "commentary" on the major questions facing our world is ethical and moral considerations. Sometimes such dimensions are implied but rarely stated openly. This, too, is unfortunate.
You don't have to be a moralist, theologian, or scholar to see the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. Nor is intelligence restricted to the few. Why moral and ethical questions are the last to be asked perhaps stems from not wanting to be named as an "expert" or "novice" or "smart-ass" or "ignorant" or "high minded" or "zealot" or "heathen" or "hypocritical" when dealing with the subject. There's that name calling again.
There's no shame with honesty, even when from time to time we are wrong, inconsistent, or found less than perfect. If we can't let our rough edges get knocked off, how on earth will we ever get polished?
Yes, the western world has a long history of theology and philosophy upon which to draw. Both are deep wells of received wisdom and knowledge. One, or the other, and both are accessible to all. Moreover, they are much more nuanced and richer than many would have us believe. We ignore them at our peril. We ignore speaking our truth in love at our peril, too.
Cheers!
Yes, the western world has a long history of theology and philosophy upon which to draw
I think that Eastern thought and religons have a great amount to draw upon also. Buddism for example.
A wealth of things for Personal Spirtuality and Personal enlightenment as opposed to having a minister/priest to lead the flock.
There is so much good in the worst of us
and So much bad in the best of us
it's hard to tell which of us
should reform the rest of us
What gets me is the way Bob says a number of things which are pretty wacky and probably not at all what he meant to share.
"I'm a minority around here, I really do try to follow a spiritual path."
Whether he meant it or not, Bob is suggesting that the majority here are not following a spiritual path. How he knows any of this to be so -- that he is in the minority here on following a spiritual path (whatever that might mean?) and the majority is not -- is highly questionable, but is illuminated in the following way:
"At least 2/3rds of the folks here are without religion but are very fine and moral people."
Bob is apparently defining this majority as being "without religion" (meaning what exactly?) yet who still are fine and moral people. Despite acknowledgment that folks *without religion* can be decent people he is further distinguishing his belief (?) that it is *with religion* one follows a spiritual path, and hence his alleged minority status.
Oh man, Bob is an endearing fellow but this is ridiculous stuff to write!
As to "I think they are making a mistake..."
I think Bob claiming all manner of things with respect to the position of any minority or majority beliefs about himself and everyone else here on religious or spiritual matters (especially so without explicit definitions!) is the biggest mistake. Say what you want about your own beliefs by all means if so moved, but leave out the pigeon-holing as to what you think anyone else may or may not believe, or anyone's ranking in any of this.
Bob, it isn't just the naming of things that is separatist, it is this categorizing of spiritual matters and what other people may or may not believe (especially according to most formalized religious codes) that is equally if not more so misbegotten. That's the real pity of formal religion and many followers thereof IMHO.
Godraz-
According to the survey we did at TOD about six months ago, 60% of the people posting here are atheists. I don't know how to find the demographics again, but maybe someone around here can remember. Of the 40% remaining, its safe to say 25% are not participants in a church religeon. At any rate, thats wher I got my figures.
I don't know where you got the idea that I think that people in a religion are following a spiritual path. My actual belief is that many people who are religious are religious because many churches will tell you the moral and philosopical position to take in reguards to most areas of our lives, areas like sexuality,divorce,and abortion that have changed and evolved over the centuries. And I try to be mindful of the things that I do.
But I do think that reviewing my life to see its effectc on others, meditation, contemplation and prayer are good for me as a person, and thats what I consider spirituality. And they are certainly not confined to religious people.
your assumptions about me is why many people don't discuss spirituality much here. And its a shame, because our actions are what's distroying the world-our carbon release is a personal sin, as well as a civic one. And its not mentioned in the Bible, Quran as a sin or even displeasing to God, even though it may destroy the world. It a real, modern ethical problem which I find easy to answer, but since its brand new hasn't been labeled as a sin.
And that's the fault I find with religion. Churches find it far to easy to be comfortable with capital punishment, war, distruction of our natural environment, Bob Ebersole
Bob,
I've made no a priori "assumptions" about you at all -- except one. All I've done is reflect back what you wrote, which, if I assume anything, I believe you didn't really mean to say at all!
Yet when you wrote, "I'm a minority here, I really do try to follow a spiritual path", you are suggesting (unintentionally so I believe) that the majority is not doing so. Now that's an assumption and a questionable one at that!
I too am aware of the TOD readership survey, but what atheism, agnosticism, or religious affiliation has to do with spirituality or any such path of the same by each of us is a whole other matter. (Had the survey asked such questions any resulting insight into this might be very different.) Yet your original statements as a whole were suggestive of an assumption -- one I do assume was more than likely completely unintended -- that these majority TOD folks "without religion" were a) not on a spiritual path, and b) "making a mistake".
Based on the replies of FB and Jaymax, I further assume, and rightly so I think, that such assumptions as you suggested are bound to be looked upon as highly questionable. I agree, and yet I've offered you from the get-go the benefit of the doubt that any of this is as you intended.
That you don't understand how I (and others) "got the idea that I think people in a religion are following a spiritual path" vis a vis those "without religion" are not doing so is clearly suggested by what you wrote! "I'm a minority here, I really do try to follow a spiritual path" immediately followed up with "At least 2/3rds of the folks here are without religeon but are very fine and moral people. I think they are making a mistake..." on top of the opening statement that you a "high church Episcopalian" and the rest.
My intent, which I tried to make plain, was only to point out where I think you went amiss (categorizing yourself in the way that you did versus the rest of us) with the hope that you would see it too and avoid making the same mistake ever again. If I assumed anything about you it is that I don't think you meant to say what you mistakenly did.
In all this I assume only that you are a decent fellow who misspoke. :-)
Best wishes -
godraz
I think there could be something else going on here...by it's nature, PO theory is about a phase change, a new paradigm, or whatever jargon you want to use, but in this case the jargon refers to something real. Accepting PO theory means accepting that prices may go much higher, that there could be shortages, financial turbulence could make liquidating assets problematic, there could be enormous changes to every aspect of American middle class life. Just because a person understands and accepts the basic outlines of PO and ELM theory, if they look around and see all their family, friends, & neighbors doing nothing, and the media is untroubled by the implications of PO...
Most TOD posters say, "If you KNOW this, you should ACT..." But not so easy to do for someone who has made a living with their hands...we don't trust our own analysis, it seems counterintuitive. "...gee, no one else seems concerned, maybe I've missed something..."
So, for us, it's not that there's a psychological barrier to taking necessary ELP precautions, but a lack of confidence to act on our own considered judgement. Same reason I didn't buy Microsoft 20 years ago.